ComfortMyPeople

Never heard it. But I have my doubts only because this same topic came up at Bethel many years ago around mid-1979 during the Bible reading of Job and a morning text comment by Brother Franz regarding the "yearly" feast days for each of Job's sons. The fact that he added the word "yearly" started the unfounded rumor. 
Then, of course, rumors swirled after the following statement made about celebrations with piñatas, allowed at the time only for Witnesses in Mexico but not California when I used to live in Southern California. That changed in 2003:
*** g03 9/22 p. 24 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
When considering whether to include a piñata at a social gathering, Christians should be sensitive to the consciences of others. (1 Corinthians 10:31-33) A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. Understandably, opinions may vary from one place to another. Hence, it is wise to avoid turning such matters into big issues. The Bible says: “Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.”—1 Corinthians 10:24.
This was the conclusion of an article that admitted the association between piñatas and Christmas traditions. Curiously, the article also noted that the Mexican piñata was not strictly related to Lent, Christmas, and the struggle against Satan, and blind faith, but had an older origin celebrating the BIRTHDAY of the war god Huitzilopochtli.
*** g03 9/22 pp. 22-24 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
Breaking the piñata became a custom on the first Sunday of Lent. It seems that at the beginning of the 16th century, Spanish missionaries brought the piñata to Mexico.
However, the missionaries may have been surprised (as we were) to find that the native people of Mexico already had a similar tradition. The Aztecs celebrated the birthday of Huitzilopochtli, their god of the sun and war...
As part of their strategy to evangelize the Indians, the Spanish missionaries ingeniously made use of the piñata to symbolize, among other things, the Christian’s struggle to conquer the Devil and sin. The traditional piñata was a clay pot covered with colored paper and given a star shape with seven tasseled points. These points were said to represent the seven deadly sins: greed, gluttony, sloth, pride, envy, wrath, and lust. Striking the piñata while blindfolded represented blind faith and willpower overcoming temptation or evil. . . .
The Piñata Today
Later, the piñata became part of the festivities of the posadas during the Christmas season and continues as such to this day. (A star-shaped piñata is used to represent the star that guided the astrologers to Bethlehem.) Breaking the piñata is also considered indispensable at birthday parties. . . .
We found that for many people in Mexico, the piñata has lost its religious significance and is considered by most to be just harmless fun. In fact, piñatas are used in Mexico on many festive occasions, not just for the posadas or for birthdays. 

This will be my last point on this topic here, unless you continue to make further references to me, as you have done so many times already. 
After what you have said above, this is a good place to summarize the most important points again. You say that the organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible. This is true, because the Bible offers a fairly complete relative chronology with very few places where one must resort to interpretation to complete a relative chronology from Adam to Zedekiah, or even Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile, or at the very latest, 70 years after the destruction of the Temple, referenced in Zechariah 1:8 landing on the . . .On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus. . .). 
So there is a long stretch of relative dates. But there are no BC/BCE dates in the Bible. There is no Bible-based way to connect any BCE dates to our day, or even to the time of Jesus. There are no indications in the Bible that would give us the BC/BCE dates. Even the WTS relies both directly and indirectly on records from Babylonian/Persian/Greek ASTRONOMY to link the Bible accounts to any BCE date. If we claim they are from unreliable records, then that means that our own claims about any BCE dates are just as unreliable.
So it is wrong to say that the WTS stance is grounded in divine guidance. The Watchtower's BCE dates are grounded in Babylonian astronomy. However, the dates used by the WTS are cherry-picked so that astronomy-based BCE dates are accepted only as long they are AFTER about 560 BCE, and all dates PRIOR to 560 BCE only presented after adding 20 years to them.
Personally, I have no problem with the claim that the 70 years of servitude to Babylon ran from 607 to 587. That seems to be the right time period supported by astronomy. [And I have no problem with the astronomy evidence that says Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587, and the astronomical evidence that Darius' 2nd year was about 518, which would explain the other 70-year period mentioned in Zechariah 1:7-12] And if someone wants to start a 2520 year period from 607, that's just an interpretation. No harm done. But the astronomy evidence the WTS relies on to get 539 also shows that 607 was NOT the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's as we claim, but points to a year in which there was no such thing as a King Nebuchadnezzar. He didn't become king for another two years. 
The claim that the astronomy evidence might be wrong or unreliable is one thing. But it's problematic to claim that only a tiny percentage of that data is correct. Especially because the part we accept is the part that is MOST prone to the errors the WTS makes use of to dismiss the much larger set of excellent evidence. We dismiss literally ALL the evidence which is not as prone to those same errors. We even say we can make "pivotal" dates from the more error-prone evidence, but that we must also ignore the better parts of that same "pivotal" evidence in places where we don't like what it tells us.
If we merely claimed that the WTS has divine guidance and that's what it completely relies on, then that might be a difficult concept for some, but it would not be so problematic. It only becomes problematic when we try to impeach the very evidence we make use of. The WTS uses WT articles that try to show that the same evidence might mean two different things. That shows that we somehow "need" the Babylonian evidence to support us. And we have even followed Furuli's folly in order to make a FALSE claim about VAT 4956. This was really disingenuous, not just because  the claims were 100% FALSE, but because VAT 4956 is only one of a dozen different completely independent sources for the entire set of astronomical dates for Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 
Of course, I can't fault any of us for not understanding this. Very few of us will try to look into it for ourselves. And I'm no expert, and I fell for the same bits of false reasoning that made me think we were right and the rest of the world was wrong. But it's those false claims that we are right because "the Bible tells us so" or that "divine guidance tells us so" that will continue to embarrass us for anyone who goes to the trouble to check out the evidence.
As I said, I'm no expert, but it doesn't take one. It's a very straightforward thing to look up the astronomical evidence for ourselves and tell others what we found. Any junior high school student could do it. You don't need that much education. You don't need to be an expert. So there is obviously a reason that almost no Witnesses will ever go to the trouble of looking up any of the Babylonian observations we pretend to rely on. You haven't done it, or if you have you won't admit what you found. Scholar JW won't do it. The GB won't do it. The GB Helpers won't do it.
JWs are intelligent. And yet almost none of them dare to do it. If they do, they don't dare admit publicly what they found out. There are just a couple of exceptions to that rule. And we see what happens to them.
As for me, I don't think it's right to learn something and not be able to share it. I think that if we love the organization, if we love the brotherhood, and if we love Jehovah who is a lover of truth, we would share our concerns. We shouldn't want the organization to be embarrassed by having made a man-made obsession about something so trivial and unnecessary. The WTS should never have made such a big deal out of a secular, man-made set of dates. 
As for me, I will follow Psalm 26:
26 Judge me, O Jehovah, for I myself have walked in my own integrity,
And in Jehovah I have trusted, that I may not wobble.
 2  Examine me, O Jehovah, and put me to the test;
Refine my kidneys and my heart.
 3  For your loving-kindness is in front of my eyes,
And I have walked in your truth.
 4  I have not sat with men of untruth;
And with those who hide what they are I do not come in.
...
 8  Jehovah, I have loved the dwelling of your house
And the place of the residing of your glory.
...
11  As for me, in my integrity I shall walk.
O redeem me and show me favor.
12  My own foot will certainly stand on a level place;
Among the congregated throngs I shall bless Jehovah.

Page 152 of the book Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, edited by Kathryn Bard has the following information. You quoted from this in the first post of this topic, as I just requoted above, and you said it should be marked as pivotal. 
I'm wondering why you consider a date to be pivotal when, if pivotal, it would completely demolish the "chronology" used by the Watchtower.  
/* Setting the table width to 100% of its container */ table { width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; /* Collapses the border between cells */ } /* Setting each table header and data cell to take 50% of the table width */ th, td { width: 50%; text-align: left; /* Aligns text to the left */ } Your source for the "pivotal" timeline quote. Page 152.
Watchtower publications. Dates are 20 years different from your "pivotal" ones.


*** ad p. 325 Chronology ***
to synchronize Assyrian and Biblical history . . . particularly for the period . . . to 649 B.C.E [Assyrian power ends around 649 per WTS, not your pivotal timeline in 629]
*** ad p. 175 Babylon ***
Under the control of the Assyrian World Power, Babylon figured in various struggles and revolts. Then . . . Nabopolassar founded a new dynasty in Babylon about 645 B.C.E. [Note 645 here, not 625 when Nabopolassar began per your pivotal timeline in the fourth year after Ashurbanipal died in 629.]
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
. . . in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.) [Note 632 here, not 612 per your pivotal information], Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): 
*** it-2 pp. 482-483 Necho(h) ***
A pharaoh of Egypt . . . Nechos (Necho) was the son of Psammetichus (Psamtik I) and succeeded his father as ruler of Egypt. Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), [Note 630/629 here, not 610 per your pivotal information] Pharaoh Necho was on his way to help the Assyrians at the river Euphrates. 
 
*** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
In 632 B.C.E. Assyria was subdued by this new Chaldean dynasty, with the assistance of Median and Scythian allies. In 625 B.C.E., [note 625 here, not 605 per your pivotal information] Nabopolassar’s eldest son, Nebuchadnezzar (II), defeated Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, and in the same year he assumed the helm of government. 
 

 
    I find it a bit hypocritical when you attempt all this name-calling, and attempts to insult anyone who accepts the evidence for the timeline on the left. Yet you yourself call that timeline "pivotal."
If you accept that the evidence for it is pivotal, fine. But why insult and denigrate anyone else who happens to agree with that timeline?
You will note that 607 is PRIOR to the 605 battle of Carchemish by two years in your pivotal timeline. Yet the Watchtower publications put that 605 battle in 625. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. (Per your own pivotal timeline.)

At the mid-week meeting we had the Bible reading that included Psalm 26. We also sang song #34.
It's a very beautiful melody, even though I have other favorites. What I like most about the song is that it follows the Psalm very closely. It's a good reminder that the words of the original Psalm 26 were also sung, even though we don't know the original melody. But the tune and music we use seem very appropriate for the tone of the Psalm itself. 
Last week, of course, we had this for the 23rd Psalm, too. And I think the same about that melody and how appropriate it is to the words of the Psalm. 

It’s amazing how people like Joe Rogan have become better than most modern journalists. I’d listen to him more but his show is too long for me and I need a summary first.  I met Dr Peter McCullough in Tampa when he was staying directly across from my wife and I in our hotel room. My son and I talked to him in the lobby briefly. I am not quite as impressed with him now that he has tried some questionable methods to turn his own work into a money-making machine. But Rogan and McCullough were both very good sources about Covid. 

I am more and more impressed with Tucker on the majority of his current shows: Putin, covid, exposing the idiocy of Christian Zionist supporters, etc  He is going where no man with his popularity has gone before.
Alexander Mercurion is another example of the best news commentary on the Ukraine war but he is too detailed and will give a two hour program on the day's battles and predictions and comment on both sides of the news reports. You get a much better sense of who is doing more spinning and who is doing more straightforward reporting. It's useful, or at least interesting, but who can give 10 hours a week?
Scott Ritter does well with shorter summaries on shows with Danny Haiphong for example. But his own super-pro-Russian biases come through too often. 
There are a couple of excellent resources for Gaza-Israel reporting from people who have lived and worked in both Palestine and Israel. But people tend to defend the indefensible even if they are generally giving correct info. They try to read excuses into bad actions by Hamas. Scott Ritter does this too. 

He even says he drives a Subaru:

I’ve never heard a Tucker excerpt I didn’t like. That said, I haven’t heard too many. None of those other people do I know. In the early days of Covid, however, I forwarded a Joe Rogan interview with Dr. McCullough to HQ, hoping that if they found it as informative as I did, they would overlook Joe’s explosion of profanity towards the end. Probably, I put myself on their radar screen as much as you during your recent visit, during which they said to themselves,  “What is it this politician would like to tell?” Others: “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign deities.”

The link was excellent. I remember my parents going to pbs and npr but only after Walter Cronkite was no longer THE source. In those days I trusted the NYT the way my doctors still trust the Lancet or the BMJ. 
Rogue reporters have explained a lot about how we were fooled for so long. Tucker Carlson is often the new best source  on several topics and has ditched much or most of his prior ideological baggage from 4 or 5 years ago. 
Clayton Morris from “Redacted,” also a former Fox News commentator, still carries more of that baggage than Tucker I think. I like that Clayton’s wife, Natalie Morris, raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, is consistently anti-war. anti-bigotry, and anti-woke, and neutral where she can be. But for some topics they are spot on. For that matter Fox itself is often the best of the bunch for being less inclined to be influenced by current State propaganda. 

Here was the general conversation, skipping a part where I had just explained how 30,000 Palestinians, largely women and children, had been killed, and the majority of major news outlets were still equivocating about whether Israel had gone too far. But when half-a-dozen mostly "white" aid workers were killed, suddenly Nancy Pelosi (friend of the aid organization founder), Joe Scarborough, Elizabeth Warren, and a bunch of others turn on a dime to stop giving Israel a free pass -- embarrassing their own man Biden. 
THEM: Well, anyway, we don't take sides about literal Israel, and we don't discuss political sides of who supports whom.
ME: But that last part is just information, even history.
THEM: History is one thing but the Bible says don't speak against the King. What's that it says in Ecclesiastes?
(Ecclesiastes 10:20) . . .Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, and do not curse the rich in your bedroom; for a bird may convey the sound, or a creature with wings may repeat what was said.
ME: Yeah. That's where we get the expression: "a little birdie told me." Basically, it means that someone on Twitter will turn you in. Or all the government agencies will be listening in on Twitter.  
THEM: Very funny. You mean "X."
ME: Yeah, but they still call them "tweets."
THEM: But still we don't take sides, we don't even say anything against any ruler, whether he's good or bad. We only pray that they make decisions that are good for us. 
ME: I don't think it's wrong to say something against a ruler. Don't you think Hitler was a bad ruler?
THEM: But he's not a king now is he? He's dead.
ME: I mean even when he was alive.
THEM: Well, of course, because he was attacking Jehovah's people.
ME: But it would have been wrong to say he was bad while he was attacking millions of Jews?
THEM: [changing subject] But look how respectful Paul was talking to Felix, he never said a word against him.
ME: Maybe not, but Luke tells us he was probably looking for a bribe. That's pretty negative.
ME: continuing . . . And Jesus called Herod a fox.
THEM: Well maybe he was "foxy" -- "crafty" not always a bad thing.
ME: You don't believe that . . . and even if it was a good thing, then Jesus was taking sides.
THEM: Anyway . . . it's wrong.

My overall point is that most Witnesses I know in the United States are very political and don't even know it. Often much more political than their neighbors who vote. There are certain limits to what we will say about our political views, but I think we don't recognize that those political views often come out inadvertently in other ways.
In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with.
My parents and many relatives were of the type that said they wouldn't be fooled by all the lies and exaggerations from MS-NBC supposedly on the "progressive left." Nor the lies and exaggerations from FOX News on the supposedly "conservative right." But that didn't stop them from being fooled by thinking that CNN was not mostly "state-sponsored media" that would cherry-pick stories now and then to keep up the ruse that they weren't. As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex," it was clear what side they were going to take. And although Trump was golden to all networks for his ability to spout controversy, one of his biggest sins for CNN was the fact that he went 4 years without getting the USA involved in any new wars. 
We were watching CNN once, not on purpose, and although many segments were introduced with "Brought to you by Pfizer" one was introduced "Brought to you by McDonnell-Douglas." As if any of us watching were about to go out and buy McDonnell-Douglas fighter jets and missiles for accessories. Of course, even the segments brought to you by Pfizer weren't really for any of us to be swayed in our pharmacy choices, either. As with all corporate media, those ads are really just payments to CNN; they are all just a way for corporations to PAY (bribe) the news writers and commentators to realize on which side their bread is buttered. They are merely buying influence.
----
All this was probably just my own rationale to excuse my own tendency to throw in opinions about politics, politicians, and the mainstream corporate media. There are no easy answers to how someone should go about getting their news, or how to feed their own opinions. But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events. 

The last time I was here, they were more ambiguous about taking pictures and sharing them with friends, so I literally took a picture of just about everything and I even posted a set of pictures here. But this time they give stricter unambiguous instructions about the personal and family use of pictures taken, even when you can take a still picture vs a video. And the instruction is now explicitly that they cannot be shared on any social media platform. Sorry.
The 4 "museums" at Warwick are still about the same as before. With a few updates and a few older things cut out. The Bible museum is still the best. Probably the best of its kind anywhere. There is a separate segment on the use of the Divine Name in Bible translations, and it's very good.
There are several bits of interactive equipment that were working perfectly in 2018 and 2019 but are now giving trouble. For example, touchscreens that take your input about all kinds of things, such as whether you have worked on a WTS construction project, or which book you studied in preparation for baptism [e.g., Let God Be True, What Does the Bible Really Teach, Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Paradise ...Regained, etc.] and then it gives statistics on many of these things for everyone to see. [e.g. 68% of all visitors this week have worked on a WTS construction project, etc.]
One thing that bothered me a bit was the reduction of material in a special "Watchtower History" museum that had a lot of pre-1919 information about the persecution mostly starting with the 1917 Finished Mystery book. They changed the name and now start it mostly in 1919. And then cut out a large percentage of interesting stuff. 
Also, they have the big wall-sized "Chart of the Ages" in one of the rooms highlighting Russell's early work. And another wall-sized chart called "Bible Chronology" that Russell's early followers also used in their meeting places. Those charts have the dates on them -- even if some of those dates appear to be embarrassing today.
But now there is a new "Chart of the Ages" I have never seen before in the Patterson museum on a similar historical subject but it seems like the dates have been removed. The chart is still titled "CHART OF THE AGES" and the museum label below it says:
How was the training provided [in Russell's time]? The "Chart of the Ages" was used as the primary basis for practice talks. 
It's evidently a wall sized blow-up of a page from one of the publications, because it still has the pictures of the pyramids on it, but on the chart itself, in says in fine print (on the side):
"For Explanation see The Plan of the Ages published by Bible and Tract Soc'y, Brooklyn N.Y."
Also odd that they left out the word "Watchtower," just Bible and Tract Society. I could be wrong, but it looks like it was edited to remove the embarrassing dates that are on the large one at Warwick.
If I remember, I'll look it up unless someone here already knows if there was a "generic" chart of the ages. 

https://youtu.be/WzunDBINbS4?si=8a9ldj2xNZiWB0Up
MAMRE -- Where God Appeared to Abraham!
 

(Ke·tuʹrah) [from a root meaning “make sacrificial smoke”].
A wife of Abraham and the mother of six of his sons, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah, ancestors of various N Arabian peoples dwelling to the S and E of Palestine.—Ge 25:1-4.

If the above claims of R.R.Newton were all true, it would have a devastating effect on the Watchtower's chronology for the events reported about 539 BCE. To avoid the admission that the 539 evidence also lands Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year on 587 BCE,  the WTS is forced to ignore most of the evidence data that would easily confirm 539 BCE and instead specifically makes use of the supposedly "fabricated" eclipse from Kambyses 7, listed above. (Note that this is one of only 3 that Newton considers fabricated.) The term "may be fabricated" can also mean the same as "may be genuine" but Newton applies a different percentage of probability to that possibility. 
Note the use of this very eclipse from "Insight:"
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Keep in mind of course that -522 is 523 B.C.E.
But also note that while R.R.Newton actually does prove (to my satisfaction) that Ptolemy basically copied a lot of previous information without actually working out the math for himself. He gives himself credit for work that others had already confirmed before him, and in some cases proves his "fraud" by making the same mistakes that others made before him. He did not personally work out all the mathematics or observations found in Almagest. 
But only two of the eclipses above have any bearing on the discrepancy between Watchtower chronology and the standard chronology of the Biblical accounts. And usually, the only reason we (Witnesses) take much interest in chronology is to help understand the chronology of Biblical accounts. So the only two that are both highly questionable and related to the Biblical accounts are these, below, which he says are fabricated:
-620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated
-522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated
Fortunately, we know that the second one was NOT "fabricated" because it's also on an old copy of a clay tablet from years prior to Ptolemy (as quoted in "Insight"). The "Insight" book is correct.
One of the most thorough reviewers of the book said this about it:

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1980JHA....11..133M/0000134.000.html
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Title: Book-Review - the Crime of Claudius Ptolemy
Authors: Moesgaard, K. P.
Journal: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 11, pp. 133-135, 1980
Bibliographic Code: 1980JHA....11..133M

 

Or… as Abraham Lincoln once said, “ Never trust any historical dates you get from the Internet”.

I have no expectation that my posts should matter to anyone. But I should make clear that I don't assert that 587 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE as 18th year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. I'll leave it to the Bible to assert whether anything significant is associated with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign.
And I would say the same for 539 BCE as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon. I don't assert that 539 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 539 BCE as the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, since this is about the preponderance of evidence, it is also good to point out that, compared with 539, there is at least 10 times the evidence for 587 being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
As to 612 BCE for the Fall of Nineveh, I couldn't say it's correct either. But I do know that the best evidence does show that 612 BCE is the 14th year of Nabopolassar's reign. 
They offer a certain convenience, but I still don't think we really need to know any of the BCE dates. They can't be determined without astronomy anyway. Were the apostles supposed to learn astronomy or trust in someone else's claims about astronomy to understand Bible prophecy? It's like someone in service once said about the King James Version Bible: "If it was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me."

Actually, I have never seen a person who worked so hard to prove someone wrong, but at the same time, inadvertently confirm that what I have been presenting here is relatively accurate -- so far. Given time, and given the amount of effort you evidently put into finding fault, I assume that someday you really will find something that I am presenting incorrectly, and then I'll be able to learn something useful from it and make the necessary correction. In the past, under other names, you've presented some resource material I hadn't seen before, and I found it very interesting. I'm a patient person. Happy to keep waiting for something useful again. Even if it means putting with all those lies and nonsense from you about banning persons. I'm also happy for the entertainment value, and revelations about human nature, etc. 
Even if you don't come through again. I have no interest in banning you, nor do I even know for sure if I have that authority as an assigned moderator. If I do have that ability, I have never used it.

The top part is just the Babylonian kings based on the tens of thousands of contract/business tablets, with no concern as to their BCE dates. Just trying to match up the Biblical events underneath. Then the two unnecessary rows at the bottom offer the standard BCE timeline in green, and the WTS timeline in blue. 
Note that the WTS timeline agrees with the green standard timeline from 556 onward, but differs from 580 on back. The WTS publications also agree with 580 being part of Evil-Merodach's reign, so I have included that date. But the orange dates refer to the entire reign of Neriglissar which is the only range of standard dates which the WTS leaves open to a 24-year period rather than a 4-year period. The assumption is that there may be one or more unknown kings who reigned for 20 extra years during this period. 
Like I say, these BCE dates aren't necessary for understanding the Bible. The Bible doesn't use them. I would not stake my life on either one of the timelines. The only thing I would push back on is the false claim that the blue (WTS) have more or better evidence behind them than the green (standard).  

That's another astute observation. Even if a stone tablet or inscription had declared that it was precisely the 14th year of Nabonidus when Nineveh fell, and another tablet gave astronomical positions that could only be dated to the 612 BCE, this isn't enough. Who's to say that the those lunar or planetary positions which definitely happened in 612 BCE were actually recorded in the 14th year of Nabonidus, just because they say they were? The celestial positions would still definitely be for 612 BCE, but attributing them to "NABONIDUS 14" could still have resulted from a scribal error (or a conspiracy of scribal errors). And just because the ancient record indicates that Nineveh was actually destroyed in the 14th year of Nabonidus, who's to say that this wasn't wishful thinking on the part of the person recording the events. Perhaps the bulk of Nineveh had been destroyed earlier, perhaps it was an ongoing process and someone just arbitrarily assigned it to a specific year of Nabonidus to make it appear more successful, even though the persons he was after got away to another city. Or who knows whether there was some criteria by which a city was considered captured or destroyed under Assyrian protocol that was different under Babylonian or Judean? 
However when the Bible speaks of Jerusalem's temple being destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, we probably shouldn't doubt that it was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
But there is an obvious solution to the problem. Just pick any particular date you would like and work from there. See what evidence there is to attach a Julian/Gregorian date to it (B.C.E./B.C.) and see if it fits the rest of the evidence. 
It's even simpler because the Watchtower publications already agree with all of the standard dates that I have marked in green below throughout the Neo-Babylonian period. Since these are the only two competing timelines that we are worried about, why not just discuss them either as relative dates, the way the Bible does, or offer both BCE dates in the timeline. That's what I have done below when I was trying to work out the relative dates starting from 1 Kings and Jeremiah. I couldn't care less what the actual BCE dates are, so I'll just put them both there as reference. I'll put it in the next post.
 

And that's exactly why I point out that there is no evidence that it either creates or fills a 20-year gap. It doesn't by any means imply that such a void can simply be dismissed or argued in favor just to win an argument. Touché!
Also, true. When a person dismisses the fact that these potential discrepancies neither create nor fill a 20-year gap they may perceive some kind of agenda brewing. I happen to know what the agenda would most likely be, because I've heard it before. Not just from you here, but from my roommate at Bethel, and from myself too. When I first tried every way I could possibly think of to salvage the WTS chronology, my roommate and I delved into some of this, and that was a year before we ever heard that there were others, like COJ who had tried to address the same issue in defense of the WTS. And believe me, when my roommate (a mathematician computer programmer) and I looked into it, our ears perked up, too, when we heard about 18-year cycles, and 19-year cycles. We also thought that they could be somehow used to explain the correctness of the WTS chronology.
I see a great advantage in that it aligns us with Jesus' words and Paul's words about the times and seasons. I think we should always pay close attention to ourselves and our teaching, handling the word of God aright. I can't help what apostates believe. There are apostates who don't believe the Trinity, does that mean I have to accept the Trinity as true? It's a sign of deceit to try to make these views "apostate" when they are the views of your own AI response, and they are the views of every current authority on Babylonian chronology that you have ever quoted. Are you quoting apostates here just because those authorities agree with the standard chronology? Was your AI program "apostate" just because it agreed completely with COJ?

Are we back on track here? Yes, there are a couple more assumptions and issues to resolve when trying to use the Bible record to go back that far. There are some sources with numbers all over the place, but ours seem pretty reasonable. Even our use of 607 is only 20 years off the standard astronomical date for Nebuchadnezzar's reign.
Exactly. Ultimately, it's the same position in "Babylon" as in the journal article I referenced. Oates is willing to discuss the variant understandings and not be too dogmatic about a single answer. My point was that it doesn't create a discrepancy affecting our understanding of how Bible chronology and secular chronology can sync up. Senacherib and Ashurbanipal and Tiglath-Pileser, and Sargon and Shalmanezer, and Esar-Haddon, etc., are all accounted for in both the Bible record as they link up with Israel's (and Judah's) kings and prophets. More importantly to the trajectory of this discussion, it has no effect on the Neo-Babylonian chronology. If our use of 607 and 539 is correct, then it wouldn't make a difference if Adam was created in 4026 BCE, or 402,600 BCE. Those Neo-Babylonian dates would still be correct, or not, based on their own evidence.
 

Even if I had the ability to ban or block someone I would never use it. To me it's a lot like shunning and we don't always know when shunning can result in a kind of trauma to people who feel they have rightly invested a lot into the ideas they promote here.
It's the nature of a forum for some to present ideas that someone else might feel should be corrected. People have different ways of responding to ideas they don't like. I've always agreed with something xero recently said about how watching someone who falls back on ad hominems has just made it easier to filter through which posts and ideas are relevant. It's a time-saver, and none of us have unlimited time for this type of activity. 
I heard someone say recently that "labels are for the uneducated." At first I thought it was a joke, because "uneducated" is also a label. But they were talking about putting both pejorative labels on people, and authoritative labels, too. It's sometimes too easy to rely on someone just because they have a label of "expert" or "authority" or "elder." 
And, it's kind of a cliché but I have literally laughed out loud at some of the antics that have gone on in conversations on the forum. Including this one. It's sometimes like a cartoon or sitcom. People also don't seem to realize how much they are giving away about themselves, and it becomes a true deep dive into human nature and psychology. 
Exactly right. Personally, I don't think you are in any imminent danger. As a moderator I can see when someone has been flagged for "this" or "that." I won't say the words because it might attract undue attention by the real owners or admins. I don't think you have been guilty of any of those things, of if you have, no more than others. I, for one, appreciate that you often take care not to be too direct in those funny phrases that make reference to me: "the astronaut" "that other person." And when you hear things you don't like, you merely kindly suggest that I go back to xero's topic, or go back to the Closed Club, etc. Compared to the days when you used to get banned, I see almost a completely different person. And even then, I didn't think you should be banned. 

George/BTK/Alphonse,
Don't worry about responding. I'm just presenting a perspective on some of the things you said for the benefit of others who might be interested. 
No they are not. Not even one of the 13 readings of VAT 4956 indicates the commencement of any specific kings' reigns.
Secular history does not record the burning of the temple. Bible history tells us that this happened in the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. So far, without a direct reference to the burning of the Jewish temple in any surviving or discovered Babylonian Chronicles, all the secular evidence can tell us is that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE, and that his 19th year was 586 BCE. (And that his 37th year was 568 BCE.)
It makes no sense to say that because the temple was burned down in 588 BCE that there is some "cycle" to follow that makes clear that the destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem happened 19 years earlier, in 607. The only known astronomical cycle that is about 19 years long is the Metonic cycle, and it is never used to shift a date by 19 years, Also, it is not exactly 19 years so you can't even use it to claim that lunar positions seen 19 years earlier or later would be the same. People don't confuse lunar readings from other points on the 19-year cycle because they don't match. Besides, most opposers of the tablet evidence, like Furuli, have tried to move the date exactly 20 years, for which there is no known cycle. <PTW> The only opposers of the tablet data I know of are Furuli, the Watchtower Society, and a person online who presents himself online as Jesus Christ, the Messiah, although he appears to also present himself as transgendered. </PTW>
Velikovsky is very wrong about this. The Babylonian Chronicles for one attribute quite a lot of historical content directly to Nebuchadnezzar for his first 10 or 11 years. And many of the temple inscriptions contain historical content, and there are thousands of secular tablets that contain bits of history about others during his reign that are recorded in terms of the specific years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 
The "brick"on its own doesn't prove that. But thousands of other bricks along with astronomical data and links to similar data linked to the Neo-Babylonian kings and others for the next several hundred years do indeed prove that his reign started in 605 and the 37th year was 568 BC. I don't consider evidence as "proof" but it this brick, as you say, "proves" that his 37th year is 568, then it PROVES that his 18th year is 587 BCE. I hope others understand this. 
True, but it would then provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is 587 BC. Then it just becomes a matter of whether you trust these particular verses in the Bible.
(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .
If as you say, the "Brick" provides evidence that Nebuchadnezzar, in his 37th year, in 568 BC, took part in a significant battle, then you have just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BC, and that his 19th year was 586. If you believe the Bible, then you are saying that Nebuchadnezzar burned the temple of Jerusalem in 586 BC.
(2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.  And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard. 
So your claim about 568 as year 37 puts you in agreement with all the living Babylonian historians you have ever quoted in your entire life. All of them would say that if 568 is his 37th then 586 is his 19th. Therefore, it also puts you in agreement with COJ. 
 
 

I deny any reliance on any chronology, correct or otherwise. COJ's chronology defense is meaningless. The WTS chronology defense is meaningless. I prefer the Biblical stance that "as to the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us." We don't need to know what secular people have said about the exact BCE dates of these events. The Bible is good enough for me on such matters. 

I didn't expect the 1950 Awake! article to be as supportive as it was. The entire article gives him the benefit of the doubt, right up to finally including a statement that it includes speculation and unproven ideas. Here is the first part, and I have included the conclusion above.