SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And I'm sure you won't see it. But all you have to do is take the date that the Insight book gives for the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (625) and subtract it from the last year of "Babylonian domination" which is considered to be the same as the first two years of Persian domination (537 BCE). Do the math: 625 minus 537 equals 88 years. Yet those Insight articles on Carchemish, Josiah, Necho(h), Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakim, etc., all showed that Babylonian domination began early in Nebuchadnezzar's reign (and obviously lasted until Cyrus). Here's another

*** it-1 p. 1186 Image ***
The image obviously relates to domination of the earth and Jehovah God’s purpose regarding such domination. This is made clear in Daniel’s inspired interpretation. The golden head represented Nebuchadnezzar, the one who, by divine permission, had gained power as the dominant world ruler . . .Since the other body parts represented kingdoms, the head evidently represented the dynasty of Babylonian kings from Nebuchadnezzar down till Babylon’s fall in the time of King Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar.

The year of Babylonian domination is variable but what is more important is the dating of the 70 years and the focus of such domination is the relationship with Judah with the final rebellion which led to the Exile and Captivity in 607 BCE. If you want to play with figres which seems to be your want then if you subtract 70 years from 607 then you get 537 so that in itself speaks volumes.

26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think most all historians are in agreement about the ending of a fulfillment of 70 years. Ezra says it ended when the sons of Persia began to reign. But the devastations and desolations began as soon as Babylon became dominant. Starting in the third year of Jehoiakim.

(2 Chronicles 36:20) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign,

Ezra contradicts the Watchtower by saying that it was when the kingdom of Persia began to reign. Not a year and a half or two later, as the Watchtower claims.

That year was 537 BCE generally accepted by most historians and scholars.

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Also, Jeremiah's 70 years were fulfilled by some who were taken in the third year of Jehoiakim and some who were taken 5 years after Jerusalem was destroyed, with the major exile taking place about 10 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. The Insight book says that the third year of Jehoiakim was 626 [i.e., 4th year 625]. That's almost 20 years before Jerusalem was destroyed.

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
The fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) saw Nebuchadnezzar defeat Pharaoh Necho in a battle over the domination of Syria-Palestine. The battle took place at Carchemish

The 70 years could only have begum with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE with the land becoming desolated and the people being led off into Exile under Babylonian domination.

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And of course, if you accept 539 as the time of Cyrus' domination, then you are accepting evidence that the temple was destroyed about 50 years earlier than 539, not 70 years. So you have this same problem repeated that you are putting a 88 to 90 year domination for Babylon, when Jeremiah gave it 70 years

Nonsense

30 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And your claim that Josephus definitively and explicitly gave "Cyrus" 70 years since the full destruction of Jerusalem is also wrong, as has been pointed out already. Even Furuli admitted that the final word of Josephus on this was not "seventy" but "fifty" which is in line with the standard chronology. Even the JW defending site, "Setting the Record Straight" admits that the final word of Josephus was 50 not 70 which means that the first desolations upon Jerusalem/Judea perhaps even some temple tribute (Daniel 1:1-2) started 20 years prior, as Daniel and Berossus indicate:

In Against Apion however, Josephus first wrote "seventy" in Book I, Chapter 19 §132,^ftn5 but just two chapters later in the same book he wrote "fifty" (Book I, Chapter 21 §154^ftn6)! . . .Perhaps he was aware of secular chronology leaving only fifty years for the desolation, and was pandering to both biblical and secular chronology. As to the reliability of this "fifty years" anomaly, on page 71 of Rolf Furuli's book Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews^ftn7 we find: "Some manuscripts of Josephus give a different number than 50 years here [in Against Apion I, 21 §154], but both Eusebius and Syncellus in their quotes from Josephus use 50."

Josephus many times refers to a 70 year period and not 50 which most likely refers to temple in obscurity within the 70 year period or a copyist error or most likely was simply quoting Berossus ' history. Are you an apostate?

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If you want to play with figres which seems to be your want then if you subtract 70 years from 607 then you get 537 so that in itself speaks volumes.

Yes it does. I agree. That's why I accept 607 as a good date for the beginning of the 70 years, too. And I also agree with you that Cyrus began his reign over Babylon in 539. That's because I see plenty of evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline that puts Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604, and therefore his 18th year in 587, and therefore Nabonidus' first year in 555, and Cyrus' first year in 539, etc.

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

[When "the kingdom of Persia began to reign"] That year was 537 BCE generally accepted by most historians and scholars.

But I'm sure you know it's not true that "Cyrus began to reign" in 537. And that most scholars actually believe he started his reign in 539, the year of his "accession to the throne" of Babylon, and that 538 was therefore his first "regnal" year. If Cyrus had really begun his accession year in 537, then the Jews, according to the Insight book, could have been back home as late as 1 year and 6 months later, around October 535.

The Watchtower, as you know, likes 537 instead of 538 because of their methodology. And we know the methodology:

For 70 years, the WTS counted back from 1914 and got 606. Then they subtracted 70 from 606 and got 536. Back then some scholars were still saying Cyrus captured Babylon in 537, not 539. So the WTS used  536 as Cyrus' first regnal year, even though that has proven to be two years off (from the date we use now).That means that Cyrus captured Babylon in 537 (also two years off) and would have surely made the proclamation in 536. But that was the old view. 

Then there was a change around 1943/44, when the Watchtower finally saw that they had made a mistake in their previously published claims about the zero year. So, per the methodology, they now subtracted 2520 from 1914 correctly and got 607.  They subtracted 70 years from 607, and now got 537 as the new date for what had been Cyrus proclamation.

But by then (1943), there was a new problem. The Watchtower had realized that there was no getting around the secular data that Cyrus actually captured Babylon in 539, not 537. So they needed a longer delay to fill in these two years. That's why, for the first time, the WTS began promoting a delay of up to two years after the fall of Babylon before the Jews could return home. Not just when they "could return home," but even adding another few months for preparation and travel, so that the new end date would be after they were back in their own land. When the Jews got back from the Exile wasn't important to the WTS before, only the time of the Proclamation.

That delay was easy to claim, of course: just make sure that we don't think Cyrus announce the proclamation early in 538. (as @Arauna has insisted) The Insight book, for example, speculates that this announcement happened "later in 538" or even "early in 537," so that the Jews wouldn't get back home until around October 537 -- two full years after Cyrus overtook Babylon.

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Josephus many times refers to a 70 year period and not 50 which most likely refers to temple in obscurity within the 70 year period or a copyist error or most likely was simply quoting Berossus ' history.

Yes, we can all make excuses or speculations about why Josephus finally called it a 50 year period instead of 70, which was always the more common reference to the troubles with Babylon during this period. Yet, 50 perfectly fits the standard NB Chronology, so it's not just a coincidence. "70 years" was the common reference to the period of trouble that had included the loss of the temple. But when one would focus chronologically on just on the actual time when the Temple finally went into obscurity, chronologically it was closer to a 50 year period. (about 587 to 538/7).

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

or most likely was simply quoting Berossus ' history. Are you an apostate?

No. Of course not! Following the instructions of the Watchtower and the Bible does not make one apostate. Learning and even sharing what we've learned by following those instructions doesn't either. Our Christian obligation is to make sure of all things, to test, to prove to ourselves, and pay close attention to our teaching. In fact, the Watchtower has recommended an interest in these things.

*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people.

Of course, we know not to create contentions in the congregation over it. But we should try to make sure we remain honest, and hopefully influence more honesty about these matters even from those who are not yet aware. When discussing Berossus and Ptolemy specifically, the Watchtower once said:

*** w69 2/1 p. 92 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? ***
The reader can judge for himself whether the reckonings and conjectures of modern historians have produced a dependable Babylonian chronology. Probably it can be said that they have a system that brings some semblance of order out of the relative chaos of ancient secular records.

From what the Watchtower writers might have known at the time, this seemed accurate. But we were told we could judge for ourselves. But the article went on with more negative comments which we now know are not true as we can now understand the overall picture a bit better. Even the Insight book has admitted to additional evidence. The article, for example said.

We have noted that neither Ptolemy’s purpose in setting down his record nor the nature of his source material were such as might inspire confidence in its historical accuracy.

Now we understand that these figures never came from Ptolemy anyway, but had been handed down for the purpose of producing much more accurate understandings of the movement of the moon and planets against the background of the stars. If these were accurate enough, many such phenomena could even be predicted. In other words, this material was meaningless to anyone unless it inspired confidence in its historical accuracy. The article also added:

Both the lack of contemporary historical records from Babylon and the ease with which secular data could be altered definitely allow for the possibility that one or more of the Neo-Babylonian rulers had a longer reign than the Ptolemaic canon shows.

Yet, now we know that there is no lack of contemporary historical records. The entire Neo-Babylonian history could now be determined from contemporary historical records alone.

And we now know it's the opposite. It would have been more accurate to say "and the difficulty with which secular data could be altered --for it would require altering thousands of items-- indicates that it is nearly impossible that one of more of the Neo-Babylonian rulers could have had a longer reign than the "Ptolemaic canon" shows.

[AlanF]

16 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Here’s the problem with secular evidence of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. It can’t be fitted to Bible chronology.

A finer example of circular reasoning can hardly be found. Of exactly the same sort employed by "ScholarJW Pretendus Bullshittus Maximus".

[AlanF]

50 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower, as you know, likes 537 instead of 538 because of their methodology. And we know the methodology:

For 70 years, the WTS counted back from 1914 and got 606. Then they subtracted 70 from 606 and got 536. Back then some scholars were still saying Cyrus captured Babylon in 537, not 539. So the WTS used  536 as Cyrus' first regnal year, even though that has proven to be two years off (from the date we use now).That means that Cyrus captured Babylon in 537 (also two years off) and would have surely made the proclamation in 536. But that was the old view. 

Then there was a change around 1943/44, when the Watchtower finally saw that they had made a mistake in their previously published claims about the zero year. So, per the methodology, they now subtracted 2520 from 1914 correctly and got 607.  They subtracted 70 years from 607, and now got 537 as the new date for what had been Cyrus proclamation.

But by then (1943), there was a new problem. The Watchtower had realized that there was no getting around the secular data that Cyrus actually captured Babylon in 539, not 537. So they needed a longer delay to fill in these two years. That's why, for the first time, the WTS began promoting a delay of up to two years after the fall of Babylon before the Jews could return home. Not just when they "could return home," but even adding another few months for preparation and travel, so that the new end date would be after they were back in their own land. When the Jews got back from the Exile wasn't important to the WTS before, only the time of the Proclamation.

That delay was easy to claim, of course: just make sure that we don't think Cyrus announce the proclamation early in 538. (as @Arauna has insisted) The Insight book, for example, speculates that this announcement happened "later in 538" or even "early in 537," so that the Jews wouldn't get back home until around October 537 -- two full years after Cyrus overtook Babylon.

Yes, we can all make excuses or speculations about why Josephus finally called it a 50 year period instead of 70, which was always the more common reference to the troubles with Babylon during this period. Yet, 50 perfectly fits the standard NB Chronology, so it's not just a coincidence. "70 years" was the common reference to the period of trouble that had included the loss of the temple. But when one would focus chronologically on just on the actual time when the Temple finally went into obscurity, chronologically it was closer to a 50 year period. (about 587 to 538/7).

The change of date from 606 to 607 is one of the best examples of the Watchtower's scholastic malfeasance. Russell knew that the 'correct' date was 607 as early as about 1909, because a couple of British Bible Students, the brothers Morton and John Edgar, had informed him. They used 607 in the two editions of their Great Pyramid Passages. But Russell was more interested in peddling his ideas on 1914 as the destruction of world governments. So when he had new editions of his Studies in the Scriptures published from 1910 through 1916, he left the old and wrong chronological calculations intact. Even in 1917, The Finished Mystery used 607 rather than 606 -- without comment. So both Rutherford and his retinue knew the 'correct' date. But because so much had been said about 606, and the "Millions" campaign was promoting 1925 as the date for Armageddon, no WTS official wanted to rock the boat because it all hinged on the 606 chronology -- which Rutherford was promoting as divinely inspired chronology. Even as late as the mid-1930s there were hints that WTS officials knew better. The Golden Age used the 607 date more than once.

After the unlamented Rutherford died in 1942 and Fred Franz became, in effect, the head theologian of the Watchtower Society, Franz decided to "correct" the date from 606 to 607. As part of that effort he changed 536/538 to 539 for the fall of Babylon. Then in the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free Franz, smack in the middle of the book, argued that the date for the beginning of the Gentile times was "really" 607 not 606. But he forgot to change the date of Jerusalem's destruction to 607. So by the end of the book we had the amusingly inconsistent position that Jerusalem was destroyed some 10 months after "the Gentile times" had begun in 607 BCE. By 1944 and the publishing of The Kingdom Is At Hand, someone realized that the arguments were self-inconsistent, and in a chart of dates Franz showed 607 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. But as per the usual Watchtower methodology, no arguments were given for the change. In fact, a footnote mentioning the change falsely claimed that the 1943 book had changed the date from 606 to 607 -- a flat-out lie. When editions of The Truth Shall Make You Free were published after 1944 and in languages other than English, all references to 606 were changed to 607, which made the 'argumentation' for changing "the Gentile times" to 607 unintelligible. But Watchtower adherents being what they are, no one complained, even if they noticed.

You can read about the gory details of this Watchtower deception in my article "The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology" here: https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html .

[JW Insider]

4 minutes ago, AlanF said:

no arguments were given for the change. In fact, a footnote mentioning the change falsely claimed that the 1943 book had changed the date from 606 to 607 -- a flat-out lie.

I had wondered about that too. And I've seen what you've written about it. At Bethel, I was involved in re-proofreading the ka book because it was to be printed again for a second round of "Book Study" usage, right after the COJ news broke. It had several odd passages that seemed to try to simply smooth over some complicated details. Like this one:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” . . . This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .

It was 1980, and I remember that my primary concern at the time was that this passage appeared to have been a subtle cue from back in 1973, that Christ's return was "now" to be expected in the 1970's, no longer the 1870's.

But I also looked up 1943 book and saw that the picture of Nebuchadnezzar eating grass was sandwiched between this sentence:

But that, a few pages later in chapter 11, the date 607 was used.

(As an aside, the Writing Dept and proofreaders in the 1970's and 1980's didn't like splitting up the name Jehovah into syllables, as was done here in 1943. Typographers had syllabification rules, and also had "widows and orphans" rules related to things like this.)

Of course, that passage wasn't specifically about the zero year anyway, but if you looked up the chapter you would find it, and notice that 606 was still being used but in a way still a bit different than we now use it. And even though as you said, 607 was also acknowledged sporadically in some earlier publications.

Here was the 1943 version of how 606 could mean 607:

I've heard other Witnesses echo the claim that it was two slight errors that canceled themselves out, based on this:

*** w52 5/1 p. 271 par. 21 Determining the Year by Fact and Bible ***
At this point some will inquire why Charles T. Russell in 1877 used the date 606 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem whereas The Watchtower of late years has been using 607 B.C. This is because, in the light of modern scholarship, two slight errors were discovered to have been made which cancel each other out and make for the same result, namely, 1914. Concerning the first error, Russell and others considered 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 as being two years whereas in fact this is only one year because, as has been said above, there is no “zero” year in the B.C.-A.D. system for counting years. “The Christian era began, not with no year, but with a 1st year.”—The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 102.

Russell himself had published a defense, albeit a weak one, of using the zero year when a "question from the readers" was addressed in the Watch Tower.

[AlanF]

JW Insider said:

Quote

1 hour ago, AlanF said:
no arguments were given for the change. In fact, a footnote mentioning the change falsely claimed that the 1943 book had changed the date from 606 to 607 -- a flat-out lie.

Quote

 

I had wondered about that too. And I've seen what you've written about it. At Bethel, I was involved in re-proofreading the ka book because it was to be printed again for a second round of "Book Study" usage, right after the COJ news broke. It had several odd passages that seemed to try to simply smooth over some complicated details. Like this one:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” . . . This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .

 

Yes, of course. The information was designed to say as little as possible about those changes, and to give a completely false impression of the reasons for them.

Quote

It was 1980, and I remember that my primary concern at the time was that this passage appeared to have been a subtle cue from back in 1973, that Christ's return was "now" to be expected in the 1970's, no longer the 1870's.

Of course. That brings up an amusing memory: Back around 1993 I was reading various JW-critical books, one of which pointed to the 1973 ka book and its admission that, until 1943, whatever is now taught about 1914 had been claimed for 1874. I mentioned this to my then-wife, who said, "That's not true!" I handed her her own copy of the book, the one she had studied and underlined for the Book Study, and opened to the appropriate page. She refused to look at it. That solidly exemplified the attitude of most JWs toward learning anything about how stupidly the Watchtower has buggered things.

Quote

 

But I also looked up 1943 book and saw that the picture of Nebuchadnezzar eating grass was sandwiched between this sentence:

image.png

 

Yes, the 606 date was used until about the middle of the book. When I first looked into this back around 1993, I was astonished at the level of stupidity, but more so at the level of deception. It was obvious that the author, Fred Franz, had zero respect for the intelligence and honesty of his readers.

Over the next few years I accumulated non-English versions, and was again astonished that these were all published as if they were straight translations from the original English, but uniformly substituted 607 for 606. It was all too clear that the Writing Dept., under Freddie's direction, had systematically lied about the entire matter.

Quote

 

image.png

But that, a few pages later in chapter 11, the date 607 was used.

(As an aside, the Writing Dept and proofreaders in the 1970's and 1980's didn't like splitting up the name Jehovah into syllables, as was done here in 1943. Typographers had syllabification rules, and also had "widows and orphans" rules related to things like this.)

Of course, that passage wasn't specifically about the zero year anyway, but if you looked up the chapter you would find it, and notice that 606 was still being used but in a way still a bit different than we now use it. And even though as you said, 607 was also acknowledged sporadically in some earlier publications.

Here was the 1943 version of how 606 could mean 607:

image.png

 

I just love that sentence beginning "Inasmuch as". It's a perfect example of the deliberate deception practiced by Watchtower leaders like Fred Franz and by many members of the Writing Department.

Quote

 

I've heard other Witnesses echo the claim that it was two slight errors that canceled themselves out, based on this:

*** w52 5/1 p. 271 par. 21 Determining the Year by Fact and Bible ***
At this point some will inquire why Charles T. Russell in 1877 used the date 606 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem whereas The Watchtower of late years has been using 607 B.C. This is because, in the light of modern scholarship, two slight errors were discovered to have been made which cancel each other out and make for the same result, namely, 1914. Concerning the first error, Russell and others considered 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 as being two years whereas in fact this is only one year because, as has been said above, there is no “zero” year in the B.C.-A.D. system for counting years. “The Christian era began, not with no year, but with a 1st year.”—The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 102.

 

Yes, but the real source for modern JWs is this deceptive story reproduced in somewhat different form in a box on page 105 of the 1988 book Revelation -- Its Grand Climax At Hand. One footnote is priceless:

<< Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between “B.C.” and “A.D.” Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at “A.D. 1914.”—See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” published by Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1943, page 239. >>

Providentially? LOL! This footnote is pure deception from beginning to end.

Quote

Russell himself had published a defense, albeit a weak one, of using the zero year when a "question from the readers" was addressed in the Watch Tower.

I've probably seen this, but can you supply the reference?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I've probably seen this, but can you supply the reference?

December 1, 1912. Page 377-8. Reprints page 5141.

I'll put the first page on, but if it's hard to read I've expanded the paragraphs about the question:

Instead of defending the fact that there was NO zero year, the answer is a bit wishy-washy. He appears to use the fact that astronomers use the zero year, but he doesn't clarify (or doesn't know) that this for a different reason and that astronomers did this with full knowledge that the actual transition from CE to AD (BCE/CE) did not have it. But the wishy-washiness served the purpose of allowing Russell to be off by one year, as had been hinted at earlier. Later Watchtowers said that Russell had announced the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, but because no one had been able to discern 1914, the Watchtower in January 1916 shows Russell claiming that the Gentile Times ended in 1915.

[scholar JW]

JW  Insider

51 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

December 1, 1912. Page 377-8. Reprints page 514

The so-called error that Alan F in his ignorance and cannot even give the modern calendation for the first year of Cyrus is simply facile. The above quoted WT article explains the zero-year problem nicely.

No doubt if you checked reference works, Bible dictionaries and other works on Chronology of that period then a similar error would have been made. WT scholars one informed of the error made the adjustment establishing by 1963 our superior strong cable of WT chronology. 

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

<< Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between “B.C.” and “A.D.” Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at “A.D. 1914.”—See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” published by Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1943, page 239. >>

Providentially? LOL! This footnote is pure deception from beginning to end.

Don't you love the word 'Providentially' for it shows that the Lord's people truly listen to their God Jehovah and humbly follow the leadings of the Spirit in constructing that Strong Cable of Bible Chronology. By the way have you answered my question to you as you seem to nitpick over a zero year calculation SO HOP TO IT!!!!

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

3 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

'Providentially' for it shows that the Lord's people truly listen to their God Jehovah and humbly follow the leadings of the Spirit

LOL. It sounds like your purpose here is beginning to show too clearly.

There can be only one reason you would try to support the claim that it was providential that the leadings of the Spirit led God's people to make a mistake. Trying to blame a mistake on Jehovah and the leading of the Spirit is hopefully just a matter of you trying to provoke the way an "Internet troll" would, and not your real feelings about Jehovah and the Spirit.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes it does. I agree. That's why I accept 607 as a good date for the beginning of the 70 years, too. And I also agree with you that Cyrus began his reign over Babylon in 539. That's because I see plenty of evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline that puts Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604, and therefore his 18th year in 587, and therefore Nabonidus' first year in 555, and Cyrus' first year in 539, etc.

Well that is good so why are you messing about with stupid NB Chronology a dead end -going nowhere?

The claims of NB Chronology as to the reigns of Neb are disproved by that strong cable of Bible Chronology by means of the biblical 70 years. End of story!!

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I'm sure you know it's not true that "Cyrus began to reign" in 537. And that most scholars actually believe he started his reign in 539, the year of his "accession to the throne" of Babylon, and that 538 was therefore his first "regnal" year. If Cyrus had really begun his accession year in 537, then the Jews, according to the Insight book, could have been back home as late as 1 year and 6 months later, around October 535.

The reign of Cyrus with his first regnal year was from 538-537 BCE thus it is easily determined that the Jews returned home in the year 537 BCE as simply and reasonable explained in our publications. Of course, methodology makes this possible but that is simply doing chronology.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

For 70 years, the WTS counted back from 1914 and got 606. Then they subtracted 70 from 606 and got 536. Back then some scholars were still saying Cyrus captured Babylon in 537, not 539. So the WTS used  536 as Cyrus' first regnal year, even though that has proven to be two years off (from the date we use now).That means that Cyrus captured Babylon in 537 (also two years off) and would have surely made the proclamation in 536. But that was the old view. 

Then there was a change around 1943/44, when the Watchtower finally saw that they had made a mistake in their previously published claims about the zero year. So, per the methodology, they now subtracted 2520 from 1914 correctly and got 607.  They subtracted 70 years from 607, and now got 537 as the new date for what had been Cyrus proclamation.

But by then (1943), there was a new problem. The Watchtower had realized that there was no getting around the secular data that Cyrus actually captured Babylon in 539, not 537. So they needed a longer delay to fill in these two years. That's why, for the first time, the WTS began promoting a delay of up to two years after the fall of Babylon before the Jews could return home. Not just when they "could return home," but even adding another few months for preparation and travel, so that the new end date would be after they were back in their own land. When the Jews got back from the Exile wasn't important to the WTS before, only the time of the Proclamation.

That delay was easy to claim, of course: just make sure that we don't think Cyrus announce the proclamation early in 538. (as @Arauna has insisted) The Insight book, for example, speculates that this announcement happened "later in 538" or even "early in 537," so that the Jews wouldn't get back home until around October 537 -- two full years after Cyrus overtook Babylon.

So what. All that you have done is provided a modern day history of WT chronology and as such as new research becomes available then adjustments or corrections are made and that is simply good scholarship and now we can look back with great wonder and be excited in godly faith in Bible prophecy that we alone possess a Strong Cable of Bible Chronology validated by 4 prophetic witnesses.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes, we can all make excuses or speculations about why Josephus finally called it a 50 year period instead of 70, which was always the more common reference to the troubles with Babylon during this period. Yet, 50 perfectly fits the standard NB Chronology, so it's not just a coincidence. "70 years" was the common reference to the period of trouble that had included the loss of the temple. But when one would focus chronologically on just on the actual time when the Temple finally went into obscurity, chronologically it was closer to a 50 year period. (about 587 to 538/7).

Josephus stated 70 years, five times and his description matches exactly WT interpretation noted by COJ  in his GTR, 3rd. edn, p.298, ftn.29. Further, his sole mention of 50 years is most likely a quote from Berossus who was simply mistaken or Josephus was making an observed point of reference within the 70 year period.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And we now know it's the opposite. It would have been more accurate to say "and the difficulty with which secular data could be altered --for it would require altering thousands of items-- indicates that it is nearly impossible that one of more of the Neo-Babylonian rulers could have had a longer reign than the "Ptolemaic canon" shows.

Just stick to the Bible and leave the confusion of NB Chronology to the experts such as Furuli and others.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

34 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

No doubt if you checked reference works, Bible dictionaries and other works on Chronology of that period then a similar error would have been made. WT scholars one informed of the error made the adjustment

Your guess is wrong.  Even in 1823, John Aquila Brown ran the 2,520 years from 604 B.C. to 1917 A.D. So he knew there was not a zero year, and he knew it was Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604 according to the standard NB chronology, not the WTS chronology.