ComfortMyPeople

I'm surprised that you finally admitted that. Some of your confusion appears to be clearing up.
If you now admit that his 37th year was 568 BCE, then his 36th was 569 BCE, his 35th was 570, his 34th was 571, etc., etc.
Do the math. It's simple. You are finally claiming that his 19th year was 586 BCE, and his 18th year was 587 BCE.

Now you appear to be getting it.
Found it: 
(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . ., that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .
(Jeremiah 52:29)  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
(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. 

I hope pudgy is okay but I’m fearing the worse……I really like pudgy…

I don't care. I still prefer the Bible. And if they can both be harmonized, so much the better.
Go back to your points enumerated 1, 2, 3 in your last post and note that you are still confused about interaction with Egypt and others in his 37th year, and trying to claim that this somehow proves that he couldn't have done what the Bible says he did in his 18th and/or 19th year. 
You are still showing so confusion that it looks like you have no business trying to discuss this matter right now.

You are confused again. Or you are having trouble reading and understanding. Or you are being dishonest. I said the opposite. When I say you can throw out VAT 4956 because there are other tablets, I mean it. No one needs to believe in VAT 4956 at all if they are trying to understand the absolute chronology of the period. They can use any or all of the many other astronomical records of the period.
Opposers of the astronomical evidence, like yourself, would apparently love to make it look like supporters of this evidence are all obsessed with just onw tablet, when they themselves are obsessed with trying to minimize the evidence to just one tablet. Then of course, they think that there would just be ONE tablet to dismiss or try to criticize. Of course, any criticisms they do make note of just happen to be the same criticisms that are 10 times worse for the ONE tablet that the Watchtower focuses one to get the 7th year of Cambyses. And from which the WTS will derive 539 in an unnecessarily convoluted manner, just to avoid admitting that ALL of the data for the entire period is consistent with the astronomical evidence.
Another false statement. You were and are still fixated on the dates 587 and 568 and you kept confusing which one referred to the 37th year and which one referred to the 18th and which one (or both) was being claimed as the year of Jerusalem's destruction. In fact, you show it again in your very next sentence:
This tablet, again, is about observations from the 37th year of his reign. Why would anyone think it was related to his 18th/19th? You are still showing too much confusion about the matter. Re-read the Bible accounts in Jeremiah and 2 Kings and Ezekiel, or the references in the Insight book, at least. They will all tell you which regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with the destruction.
If he was occupied in his 18th year with someone else, that's fine. But the Bible still associates the destruction of Jerusalem with the 18th year of his reign. I don't have to challenge your secular sources. But why do you feel the need to challenge the Bible, when it comes to his 18th year?
If you like your secular sources so much you also have other options which allow you to keep the Bible account along with your secular sources. For example, you can note the distinct possibility that the 18th year was still part of the siege before the wall was broken down, and that the 19th year might be the most appropriate for the final destruction. That would make it 586, which I have absolutely no problem with myself. Also, if you read the accounts carefully, you will see that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't necessarily there in person in those years, although he was stated to be there in person during his 7th/8th year. You may also read carefully enough to note that the exiles taken in the 7th/8th year focused on Judea, but the 18th/19th focused on Jerusalem itself. (Jeremiah 52). Also you might note from the Chronicles themselves that Judea and Egypt appear to have been related from Babylon's perspective and could potentially even be seen as part of the same related campaign(s). 

I’ve seen entire armies vanish. If you exercised the correct wisdom belonging to true knowledge and the correct knowledge belonging to true wisdom, you would realize this explains some missing years of Nebuchadnezzar. I banned him. He crossed a line.
It’s okay to move it back again. Once he gets an idea in his head, it’s impossible to get it out, so I corroborate it instead. It is crucial and essential that you understand this. We must not deceive the public.
 

Go back to my last post. It appears that you are the one who is continuing to disregard facts to try to vaidate your own false assumptions. 
Of course I haven't been able to show that destruction of Jerusalem is described in his 37th year. Because that's not when the Bible says it happened. See the last post. You have shown too much confusion to take this much further with you. You really seem to have no business trying to discuss Neo-Babylonian chronology. 
No. You don't. You never have. You have always claimed that you have, but no one has seen you or any of your additional accounts try to do this. You have shown too much confusion on the matter. It seems you really have no business trying to discuss it.
At least that's absolutely true!
Although that's absolutely a false and misleading statement, if you happen to believe it's true, then throw out VAT 4956. It's absolutely unnecessary to establish the absolute dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. There are about 50 other direct observations on other tablets that all happen to coincide and consistently confirm the same dates. Of course, opposers of the astronomical data would love to throw ALL of them out except for one or two that confirm the 7th year of Cambyses. But even THAT one is part of the same set of data that confirms the absolute dates for the entire period.
Again, 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, just as much (or more) than 538 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 1st year of Cyrus over Babylon.

I agree. I have seen zero substantiated factual information from you. You are always quick to use words like "misleading" "dishonest" "lying" "inaccurate" "false" etc., but these accusations are always empty and meaningless because you don't offer anything to address your claims.
What you apparently have tried to include as "facts" have always shown little more than confusion about the issue. This is in every post so far that pretends to make use of "evidence." I'll give examples from this last one I am quoting from above:
As I stated above VAT 4956 is unimportant to this discussion, but VAT 4956 gives an absolute date of 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It also gives us an absolute date of 568 BCE for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
You say Nebuchadnezzar was occupied with other military campaigns in his 37th year, which the astronomical data indicates as 568 BCE. That's fine. What if he was? That's nearly two decades after 587 BCE. Many of your posts on this particular point have shown so much confusion on this point that I have ignored them because it seemed silly to deal with confused nonsense. But this time I will explain. 
You went on to say:
You actually do NOT have historical evidence that places Nebuchadnezzar approximately 400 miles away in 587. You accidentally admitted this in other posts, including the more recent one where you added the following:
You see what you have done here? I highlighted it above in red. You have confused Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year with 587 BCE. His 37th year was 568 BCE. You ask how he could have destroyed Jerusalem in his 37th year, when the Bible (and the WTS too, for that matter) associate the major destruction, including the Temple, with his 18th/19th year. You are off by nearly 20 years, so what does it matter what other campaigns he may or may not have been involved with 20 years later? The Bible says his campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem were especially notable in the 7th, 18th, and 23rd years. Nothing about his 37th year. 
Displaying even more confusion, you went on to say:
I have never thought there was proof that establishes the year 568 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Again, that's the 37th year, made absolute by several astronomical observations during the years of his reign. VAT 4956 happens to confirm what all the other observations already confirm. Hopefully NO ONE is looking for proof that Jerusalem fell in his 37th year.
 

No. They are not.
VAT 4956 gives us 587 BCE as an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. VAT 4956 gives us 604 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year of reign. VAT 4956 gives us 586 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of reign. VAT 4956 gives us 568 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year of reign. VAT 4956 gives us direct evidence that 607 BCE was not ANY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. If you don't understand that to be true then you have no business discussing Neo-Babylonian chronology. Period.
Archaeologists and historians discuss relative chronology and absolute chronology. The Bible never gives us an absolute chronology, but it gives us a fairly complete relative chronology. The only thing that can give us an absolute chronology for Neo-Babylonian times is an astronomical date. That's the only thing that can tie a piece of evidence to a specific year in the BCE or CE era. That's what the term "absolute" means to archaeologists and historians. 
But there is no reason for opposers of the astronomical chronology to obsess over VAT 4956. That's because WITH it you can know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. But WITHOUT it you can still know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. ALL of the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are known in ABSOLUTE years, because there are many more astronomical observations and reports that tie 587 BCE directly to his 18th year of reign. 
Whether or not Nebuchadnezzar had any interaction with Jerusalem in his 18th and 19th year is up to you to either agree with or deny. All I can tell you is that we have ABSOLUTE BCE dates for every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

And I thought I was acknowledging the truth even before any of your misleading posts. LOL.
(And no I am not making fun of your grammar. Your grammar was perfect. I am merely copying one of your tactics to reflect your own words back to you in order to highlight your constant, empty ad hominem style. You always throw in as much pejorative snarkiness as you can, but you never are able to address any specific point.)
I honestly don't know who banned George, or exactly why either. But I doubt seriously it could have been for speaking the truth. On topics like this one at least, truth was far removed from him.

You realize, of course, that no one facilitates and  magnifies this ‘corruption’ more than you.
It is rather like a hot potato on a shelf that everyone tiptoes around, and in time it will cool. Then Allan/BTK/George/Alphonse etc says, “HEY, LOOK AT THIS POTATO! LET’S PUT IT IN THE MICROWAVE AND HEAT IT UP!”

Here are some of the excerpts I found most interesting:
Page 119 endnotes [Rutherford is quoted extensively by this author] 
13. A small adjustment to this date was proposed by Bro. Adam Rutherford, whose devoted labors in this field are familiar to many brethren. He believed there should be a two-year shift in all the dates of the Neo-Babylonian empire, so that the fall of Babylon occurred in 537 bc. By this means he was able to mark the beginning of Babylon’s 70 years at 607 bc, and thus end the Gentile Times at 1914, without disputing the historical testimony about the span of years between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. (For his interesting and thorough discussion see Rutherford, 25-67 .) However, these points should be noted regarding his presentation. (1) The observation that “no astronomical fixing has as yet been possible from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus inclusive” (526) is controverted by VAT 4956 which astronomically dates the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 bc . (2) His suggestion of a two-year stagger between Cyrus and his son Cambyses (535) is disputed by the 18-year eclipse cycle tablets which span the period from Nabopolassar through Artaxerxes, and the evidence of over 1400 commercial tablets published in list form in the late 1980s which cover the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses . The latter was published after Rutherford’s death, and he may have been unaware of the former. 
...
He remarks on the Adda-Guppi Stele to support a two-year stagger in linking Assyrian history with Babylonian (540-544) . This tablet recites the long life of Adda-Guppi, who was the mother of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon . It says she was born in the 20th year of Ashurbanipal (Assyrian king), and lived through his 42nd year, then 3 years of the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani (Assyrian king), 21 years of Nabopolassar (Babylonian king), 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonian king), 2 years of Amel-Marduk (Babylonian king), 4 years of Neriglissar (Babylonian king), and to the ascension of her son Nabonidus to the throne of Babylon . The age given her in the tablet at that time is 95 years . Indeed, 22 + 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95 years . Yet conventional history assigns to this span 93 years . The answer? Evidently Adda-Guppi moved from the jurisdiction of the Assyrian kings to the jurisdiction of the Babylonian kings when she was 25 years old, during the 3rd year of the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani . This neither requires that he died in his third year (in fact there is a tablet from his fourth year, see Jonsson 210, note 63), nor that she moved in the accession year of Nabopolassar (conventional history implies she made the move in his second year) . 
Page 122 has another of several examples where Adam Rutherford's scholarship sometimes contains dubious assumptions:
Rutherford also holds that the Egyptian sojourn was precisely four hundred years, but his arguments involve two other conclusions: (1) Jacob took three years to journey from Padan-Aram to Canaan, (2) ten years after crossing Jordan Joshua divided the land in a fuller way than Joshua 10:14 refers to. The first is required for his argument, the second is supplementary, but both points are dubious . (Rutherford, 139-150)
Page 135, another example:
Rutherford also reckons Tishri years for Judah, and he also does not assign Jehoiakim an accession year, which he surmises may have been because Jehoiakim came to the throne so close to (even though after) the start of Tishri (Rutherford, 29) . His chart seems to obscure the 12th year problem, which nevertheless exists (Rutherford, 321) . Further, he concludes that Daniel 1:1 also uses the  non-accession year system for Jehoiakim, and therefore adopts the unique but untenable position that the first conquest of Jerusalem preceded the battle of Carchemish . That three such thoughtful reviewers differed slightly on such details hints at the complexity of harmonizing all the data . If the Babylonian Chronicles for the year Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem from Zedekiah were extant, giving the Babylonian month and year for that event, these technicalities would be resolved immediately . But there is a resolution which brings harmony to all the details: (1) all writers used Tishri years for Judah, (2) Kings and Chronicles allow an accession year for Jehoiakim, and so correctly assign him 11 years, (3) Jeremiah uses the non-accession year system for both Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, but never stipulates the length of Jehoiakim’s reign, which would have been 12 
I have not read Jonsson's (COJ's) Supplement to GTR, but note that the author treats it as a carefully documented work of scholarship that can even be used to correct the scholarship of other resources:
117. Listed in Johnson, Supplement, 56 . He cites Ben Zion Wacholder, “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Eary Rabbinic Period,” Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XLIV, ed . Sheldon H . Blank (1973), page 184 . Evidently this article is also published in “Essays on Jewish Chronology and Chronography,” KTAV Publishing House, New York, 1976 . I have not read Wacholder’s article, but my preliminary investigation is consistent with his sabbatical list . Rutherford also gives dates, but they are one year earlier: 164 bc, 38 bc, 68 ad (Rutherford, 36-37) 
I get the impression that Jonsson (COJ) may have been well aware of Adam Rutherford's writings.

You say you brought up Adam Rutherford to expose falsehoods that I and COJ persistently propagate regarding the Babylonian Chronicles. This makes no sense to me, because I am in perfect agreement with what Adam Rutherford says about these Chronicles. I think COJ would also be in agreement. His understanding of the Chronicles appears just fine, and it adds nothing new to what other specialists have said about them. It's not the Chronicles, but his need to ignore the completely separate astronomy data that I have a problem with. To match his interpretation of the 70 years and his special interpretation regarding "sabbaths" etc., he finds a need to work around and even dismiss the astronomy data so that he can use dates that are two years different from all the astronomy evidence. 
I don't know in what other context I'm supposed to read it. I found another work that heavily references both Adam Rutherford's book on Bible Chronology and also compares the points it makes with other scholarly resources. Turns out that this author comprehended it exactly as I had, and he highlights the exact differences I made note of. I had not seen this work until AFTER I had looked through most of Adam Rutherford's Pyramidology, Volume III, when you introduced it here. I have not yet found anyone who has explained Adam Rutherford's work any differently from the way I comprehend it -- and so far that includes you, too. You have also not shown any specific places or ways where I should comprehend it differently. 
The other work discussing Adam Rutherford's theories is 140 pages (pdf) and it's found here:
https://2043ad.com/timeandprophecy.pdf
It has an extensive bibliography which includes several names you are obviously familiar with. I have skipped most of them, but these were the most recognizable and often mentined on this forum:
Barbour-Russell, The Three Worlds, Harvest Gleanings I, 1877, Chic . Bible Stud . Bk . Repub . Com ., ca . 1980 BSM = Bible Study Monthly, “Darius the Mede,” September/October 1980 Edgar, John and Morton, Great Pyramid Passages, Volume 2, Glasgow, 1913 Encyclopedia Judaica, McMillan & Co ., New York, 1971 Froom, Leroy Edwin, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, Four Volumes, Review and Herald, 1948 edition Grayson, A . K ., Texts from Cuneiform Sources, Volume V, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles,  J . J . Augustin Publisher, 1975 Jewish Encyclopedia, New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1901 Jonsson, Carl Olof, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Commentary Press Atlanta, 1986 Jonsson, Carl Olof, Supplement (to above), Odeon Books (PO Box 2071, Danville, CA 94526), 1989 Josephus, Flavius (trans . William Whiston), Josephus Complete Works, Kregel Publications, 1978 Keil, C . F . & Delitzsch, F ., Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 Volumes, William B . Eerdmans, reprinted 1985 McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1871, Baker 1969 McFall, Leslie, “Did Thiele Overlook Hezekiah’s Coregency?,” Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December 1989,  393-404 Miller, William, Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About the Year 1843, published by Joshua Himes, 1842 . Republished 1979, Leaves-of-Autumn Books, Box 440, Payson, AZ 85541 Newton, Robert R ., The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1977 Parker, R . A . and Dubberstein, W . H ., Babylonian Chronology 626 bc - 75 ad, Brown University Press, 1956 Parker, R . A ., “The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II,” JNES 16, 39-43, 1957 Pritchard, James B ., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edition, Princeton, 1969 Ptolemy, Almagest, Britannica Great Books, Volume 16, 1952 Rogers, Robert William, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, 2nd edition, The Abingdon Press, 1926 Russell, Charles Taze B = The Time is at Hand, 1889 C = Thy Kingdom Come, 1890 R = Zion’s Watch Tower, 1879-1916, Reprinted Rutherford, Adam, Bible Chronology, London, 1957  Sachs, A . J . and Hunger, H ., Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Volume 1,  Diaries from 652 bc to 262 bc (Vienna, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988) Thiele, Edwin R ., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Eerdmans Publishing, revised edition, 1965 Wiseman, Donald J ., Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626 - 556 bc) in the British Museum, published by  The Trustees of the British Museum, London, 1961

Alright, I worked my way back to Monday 6/17, and references you made to COJ and Adam Rutherford. 
When you made two clearly false statements about COJ, I did not understand why. You explained that one part of your false statement was because you had used a period instead of a comma. But even that correction didn't change the major false statement. When I asked you about it, you acted like my understanding of your clear statement was somehow a childish game and display of arrogance and a comment on your grammar. It wasn't. Your grammar was perfect. 
At any rate, you couldn't explain away the second claim but it doesn't matter. I think you merely meant something different from what you said. No big deal. 
 

Strange counter-argument to my argument that we should ALWAYS be prepared. But at least we are in agreement with the idea that we should always be prepared, and should always value our Christian life.
I won't bother yet with our ways of supporting Matthew 24 and Mark 13. I can leave that for another time. But I would point out that your own quotation includes Jesus' words that "the end" (synteleia) is not dependent on the events like a war, or wars.  These types of events are the easiest ones to be deceived by, because they are going to continue to happen, and naturally cause concern.  But Jesus pointed out that the disciples should not be looking at them as the sign of his presence. His presence would come without that type of warning sign. 

On 6/18 you made the above statements, as if my claims lacked historical support and factual evidence. But you make an odd comparison to "proving the occurrence of an event in 587 BC" and "relying on the unreliable VAT 4956." As I'm sure you should already know, VAT 4956 is much more reliable than the tablet the WTS relies on for the 7th year of Cambyses in order to prove 539. But ultimately NEITHER or open to multiple interpretations. But neither one matters. Even without either of them, you still have 50 more DIRECT astronomical evidences that the entire period from Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses is completely and reliably and consistently attested to. You could throw out VAT 4956 which opposers of the evidence seem to obsess over because they believe it is somehow "critical" to the astronomical evidence. It wouldn't make a bit of difference. There is still too much completely consistent factual evidence to overcome.

You are right that BC dates are not given to us in the Bible, and that goes for 607 BCE and 539 BCE and 537 BCE, too. But I was focusing on the idea that "the exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later." According to the Bible, it was 1 year later. The Watchtower ignores the Bible's account that it was one year later. It added the idea of two years later so that 1914 would still work. 
Of course, the Isaiah's Prophecy book (quoted above) says that the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination ran from 609 to 539, referencing Jeremiah 25 -- and this follows 2 Chronicles, too.
(2 Chronicles 36:20-22) . . .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,  to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom, . . .
So there is really nothing in the Bible about having to wait until the Jews got back to their homeland anyway. Russell had this right. The Jews got back to their homeland one year later, but the 70 years had already ended when the kingdom of Persia began to reign. That would be Cyrus' accession year (about October 539 per astronomy evidence). 538 at the latest.

I’m still dealing with that image of a hot potato that no one wants to touch.

Yes. It sounds simple. But it's even simpler to show how this is just an example of circular reasoning.
1. The bible is absolute truth. Yes. And ultimately it is the Bible's truth that can easily show us that 1914 is a false and contradictory way to look at what the Bible says about the last days, the last generation, the presence/parousia, the kingdom, the sign, the synteleia/conclusion, etc.
2. Pivotal date for fall of Babylon is 539 BCE. Yes. But the only way we can know that it was 539 is through astronomy. And the astronomy data comes to us as a set of data reaching from well before Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, and reaching to well after Cyrus and Cambyses. Through that period there are at least 50 good astronomical readings, without which we would not know any dates like 587, 607, 539, 537. Archaeology gives us dated inscriptions, and near-contemporary lists of kings with their order of succession and their lengths of reign. There are contemporary dated histories, dated business records, temple records, etc. But none of those dates are tied to our BCE or CE era. The only way that can be done is through astronomy and the supporting historical evidence through archaeology.
Even the Watchtower publications admit that they cannot date the year 539 without astronomy. When Nabonidus fell to Cyrus in 539 you'd think the WTS would use astronomy records for Nabonidus or Cyrus, but they don't. They use a damaged and partially unreliable COPY of an older inscription that gives an astronomy observation for the 7th year of Cambyses. Then they make use of a more recent King List like the one(s) Ptolemy used to see how Cambyses is related to Cyrus on the timeline. They look at the contract tablets also to see how many years that Cambyses and Cyrus ruled and to double-check that there were no other rulers or co-rulers in the meantime. 
Why just focus on the one partly unreliable INDIRECT inscription when there are at least 50 reliable DIRECT inscriptions for the entire period? That's easy. Because the entire set of reliable DIRECT inscriptions shows us that you cannot accept 539 BCE as the fall of Babylon unless you also accept that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587. NOT 607 BCE. So it's really only through dishonest presentation of the data that one could claim we KNOW about 539 without admitting that the only way we KNOW 539 is because we also KNOW that 607 is the WRONG date for the fall of Jerusalem in the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
So IF you are saying that 539 is pivotal, it's the same as saying that the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar is at least 10 times MORE PIVOTAL. That's because there are about a DOZEN observations/records of astronomical events that DIRECTLY give us the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 
If you believe 539 is correct, it's the same as saying that 607 is incorrect for ANY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. That's because Nebuchadnezzar didn't even become a king until well AFTER 607.
The exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later, 537 BCE. That's not in the Bible. It's an adjustment the Watchtower had to make in order for 1914 to still work, related to fixing the old mistake claiming it was 606 to 536 BCE.
The Bible says it was one year later, not two. Cyrus captured Babylon in October, about the 7th month of the Jewish and Babylonian year. Sometimes the Bible calls the first year of a king from that very point in his accession year, but since the Jews didn't arrive until the 7th month of the first year, this must be counting Cyrus' first year from Nisan (March/April). So it's the 7th month of 538 if you accept 539 as pivotal.
(Ezra 1:1) . . .In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom. . .(3:1) When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities, they gathered together with one accord in Jerusalem. (3:8) In the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Ze·rubʹba·bel the son of She·alʹti·el, Jeshʹu·a the son of Je·hozʹa·dak and the rest of their brothers, the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come to Jerusalem out of the captivity started the work; they appointed the Levites from 20 years old and up to serve as supervisors over the work of the house of Jehovah.
Counting back 70 years for Judah's desolation brings us to 607 BCE. Now, this is the bone of contention, unless we accept point #1 above.  This is no bone of contention for me. I believe that Judah's desolation began within a year or two of 607 BCE. Just like Adam Rutherford, and just like the Watchtower publication, Isaiah's Prophecy, I believe the 70 years were counted from the very time that Babylon became the fear-inspiring new threat and began desolating and desecrating Judea. As BTK has indicated, the effect would be on all of Judea from the moment that the new fear inspiring Empire began attacking any of the nations around it. And it did this for a 70 year period. 
----jw.org----
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
 

What if Satan knew that Jesus said that no one would knows the day and hour of his return, that it would be at a time we would not think to be it, and that the times and seasons are in Jehovah's jurisdiction, not for us to know. And what if he knew that Paul had said "As for the times and seasons, you need nothing to be written to you -- because you very well know that the day will come as a thief."
So Satan is seeking to devour people who are otherwise determined to be Jehovah's named people, but he would love to see them become disobedient to the spirit of Jesus's words and show the kind of hubris and pride that would make them think that what Jesus said doesn't really matter: that we want to claim that we can know the times and seasons anyway. 
So Satan finds a group of honest-hearted people looking for truth, but he needs them to have at least one major stumbling block -- disobedience to Jesus' words about realizing that the end comes as a complete surprise, just the way that Sodom was destroyed without warning. This way it's also possible to get people serving for a date, or not completely whole-souled because they think that they will be able to wait until the signs get even more specific [like a "cry" of peace and security] before they completely clear their conscience of all the things that could weigh them down in this system. They will be looking for signs, but won't be focused on what sort of persons they ought to be - and to be ready for that revelation/manifestation/parousia at any time, including 5 minutes from now. 
So making persons get absorbed in date-setting not only produces a lack of readiness, it always produces one more thing that most people don't realize. Everyone who sets certain expectation for certain dates is displaying presumptuousness and pride. They will also invariably fail, just as Russell failed with every single prediction and expectation for 1914, and 1915, and 1878, and 1881, and just as Rutherford failed in his published predictions for 1918 and 1925. The pride angle is obvious, because a leader like Russell or Rutherford (or Ellen G White, or Nelson Barbour, or William Miller, or Garner Ted Armstrong, or Frederick Franz, or Harold Camping, etc.) is saying in effect, "I know Jesus said that no one would know, but he is making an exception for me, and therefore for the group that listens to what I am saying. We are so special!"
But that type of pride has a secondary effect when the dates fail -- and they invariably do fail. To save face, every single person who has predicted something must backtrack (with few exceptions) and try to make it look like it wasn't really a failure. Instead of admitting failure, it becomes "Well it wasn't us, it was people listening to us but getting too carried away." Or, "We were expecting the right thing, just at the wrong time - a little to early." Or, "We had the time right, we were just expecting the wrong thing." And then there is the whitewashing of history, as when the Watchtower began "bragging" about how only Jehovah's Witnesses (called Bible Students at the time) were preaching for decades in advance that Jesus' invisible presence would begin and Christ's kingdom would be born in 1914." Of course, that's a dishonest statement, yet we have heard versions of it so many times that some of us believe it's true. No one ever preached in advance that Christ's kingdom would begin in 1914. No one ever preached in advance that Jesus invisible presence would begin in 1914.
There is nearly always an element of dishonesty that goes with every religion that has ever tried to set dates related to end time events. So if Satan could find a way to feed into that idea of date-setting either through a typo or through manipulation of world leaders to fool Russell into thinking one of his dates was right all along, I wouldn't doubt that Satan would try.

That sounds like some very dishonest and manipulative wordplay. Rutherford does not support "the belief" in 607 BC. He believed that the Watchtower (and Russell) was WRONG to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 (606) BC. Rutherford believed it was 585 and that Russell was WRONG by 21 years. Rutherford believed that the current Watchtower was WRONG by 22 years. He would believe I was wrong to use the astronomy data, because he likes 537 for the year Cyrus captured Babylon. I agree with the current Watchtower that it was 539 BC. He would believe I was WRONG by 2 years.
 But this doesn't mean I believe the Watchtower's 539 over his fixation on 537 as if my entire existence depended on it. It's just something I believe because that's what the evidence says. The astronomy evidence says the Watchtower is right about 539 and Rutherford supports a different date. So what? Same with 587 BCE. So what?
I only claim that Russell claimed that the end of the world meant the end of the "system of things." (The world: the ecclesiastical heavens and and the social earth.) The end of this world means there will be a new world, because the old heavens and the old earth will have passed away. As Russell claimed in May 1914, when his waning faith in that year was revived:
There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this Gospel age is now even at the door, and that it will end as the Scriptures foretell in a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. We see the participants in this great crisis banding themselves together [...] The great crisis, the great clash [...] that will consume the ecclesiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near.
As he said for decades prior to 1914:
We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble.

OK. You've explained a bit more. You clearly said that COJ was an ex-Bethelite and that he claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and relate this to 1914.
So it's clear that's exactly what you said, but now you say I was manipulating your words and that you were referring to me as the ex-Bethelite. Just to be clear then, it's YOU manipulating your words to say they mean something else now. Fine. But you are still saying that he, COJ I assume, claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BC and relate this to 1914. 
I don't see how you can manipulate your words about COJ claiming to align these chronicles with 607, much less 1914. He wrote his entire book to show the exact opposite. He shows how the Babylonian Chronicles do NOT align with 607 and how they therefore could never align with 1914. But you knew that, because you even quoted proof from his book. 
There's nothing to argue here. But when you manipulate your own words, to avoid admitting a simple mistake, I assume, don't accuse me of manipulating them. That's dishonest.  
Again, always with the projection. You presented COJ's own words as if they supported what you said, when they said the opposite. As if you had chosen to be blind to what they were saying. And then you accuse me of turning a blind eye.
The entire point wasn't even necessary to defend. I don't care what COJ thinks, just like I don't care what Adam Rutherford thinks. They both write from a perspective that has an agenda. COJ had an agenda to prove that the evidence the WTS uses, doesn't align with 607 or 1914. Adam Rutherford had an agenda to prove that the Great Pyramid was the "Bible in Stone" and "God's Witness" that prophesied about these last days, exactly what Russell had said. Both COJ and Adam Rutherford agree on the relative chronology of the period, but so what? I look to see if I can learn something in comparison to other resources, but then I can move on. Rutherford avoids astronomy evidence and COJ uses it. We can compare their results to those who don't have a pro-Russell-styled agenda or an anti-WTS-styled agenda, but don't simply rely on people who write with an agenda. 
What does it matter if "even Rutherford" placed it in 585 BC? He ignored the astronomical evidence. Otherwise he is stuck with 539 as the year Cyrus ended the 70 years of Babylonian domination. He needs 537 to get 607 and from there to get 1914.
100% of the current researchers, historians, archaeologists, and astronomers who have looked at the Neo-Babylonian astronomy evidence place Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587 BC. I agree with all the authorities on that subject quoted in the Watchtower publications. You disagree with all those authorities quoted in the Watchtower publications. The difference here is that I have told you why I agree but you can't tell me why you are an opposer of all those authorities the Watchtower depends upon for quotations about the period.   

I have no reason to defend him. I just wanted to know where you got the information that he was a Bethelite and why you were claiming that he aligned the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. You said:
I think it's now clear from what you just admitted in your strange deflection that you know you were wrong. What you quoted next proves it. 
Exactly. So he does NOT align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. Yes, he discredits the Watchtower chronology. Wasn't that the whole point of his book? It turns out that EVERY SINGLE authority on the Babylonian Chronicles discredits the Watchtower chronology. So what else is new? Every single authority that the Watchtower publications make use of when they want to make a point about the Babylonian Chronicles also discredits the Watchtower chronology. That's why the Insight book and Aid book for example quote these authorities, but then add their own Watchtower chronology next to the quote (and sometimes INSIDE the quote) to make it look like the authorities they reference support the Watchtower chronology. I showed half a dozen cases of this in another thread. It's called academic dishonesty in an academic setting.
It's deceptive. By pointing it out, I'm hoping this will stop happening in our publications.
There. You even highlighted the portion that proves he did NOT align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BCE. Thank you.
There. You found another place where COJ shows that he does not align them with 607 and 1914 as you claimed. 
It just occurred to me that you might not have known the definition of the word "align." That could be the only justification I can think of for persisting in your false claim. At least that isn't deceitful. 

Could be. But it doesn't seem to matter much who else was into pyramidology. If what the Christian Scientists are claiming now is wrong, so be it. 
I didn't bring up Adam Rutherford and "Pyramidology." You did. I never claimed that all Bible Student associations were the same. I never suspected he had to have been an associate during Russell's time as a Bible Student anyway. Turned out that he might have been. I saw the volume he published as late as 1974 and noted that he was born in 1894 and died at around age 80 and he was therefore only 22 when Russell died. I made no connection to Watchtower Bible Students or Russellite Bible Students. That was you thinking I did. (Or maybe hoping that I did?) When you introduced Adam Rutherford you made no connection at all to Russellite or non-Russellite Bible Students, and yet now you claim you knew his history for 40 years. If you didn't think it mattered then, why do you think it matters now? I only spoke of how his statements aligned with Russell's and other Bible Students concerning how he fully defended the same view of the Great Pyramid as Russell, and how he quoted phrases and even entire pages from Russell's Watch Tower publications. And how a current (well-known) Bible Student site claims he had been a Bible Student. All Bible Student groups were or are distinct in some small ways, but all appear to stick fairly close and loyal to Russell's Watch Tower publications from 1879 to 1916

Hardly. I only researched what I was assigned to research. The most leeway I was given was when I had to look up and review what had been said previously about certain specific doctrines. We didn't have electronic searching of anything, or the Internet. So if Brother BS, or RL, or JN asked me to look into what we once said about house-to-house, or the literal vs the figurative heart, or a partial 70 CE fulfillment of Matthew 24, or certain medical advice, or Abaddon, or Evolution, or the Creative Days, or the Prodigal Son, then I might get a chance to read dozens of articles going all the way back through the 1930's. We would find a lot of places where the WT Publications Index needed updating, too. We didn't actually care about going back to Russell. Mostly, the brothers only cared about references going back to 1935, sometimes 1931. Then we might see if our commentary referencing Bible dictionaries and lexicons still held up with the latest versions of those references. And the Aid Book was still producing new questions to look up and double-check for accuracy. 
I was never assigned a research project about chronology, or parousia, or the generation, or Gentile Times, or the 70 years, or Babylonian kings. The closest to that was a double-check of how often anyone had written about a partial or minor fulfillment of Matthew 24 in the first century. And one time I had to look up if we had been consistent about saying that the "Lord's Day" of Revelation 1:10 had been the start of 1914. But obviously it was never a matter of questioning 1914. When COJ's manuscript came up, it was a total surprise to me that anyone would question 1914, although I soon learned that Sydlik, Schroeder, Chitty and Swingle were questioning certain aspects of it. And I soon learned COJ's name from Rusk and Schroeder, but I thought they were going to find someone to respond to the document.
You seem to have not understood much of what Adam Rutherford was saying, then. Adam Rutherford's information is basically a confirmation of the ideas of COJ and every authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Being only two years off from the astronomically evidenced numbers is hardly a problem unless you also want to incorporate the dozens of astronomical readings. But Adam Rutherford stuck with the relative chronology but mostly ignored the "absolute" chronology that the astronomy readings would have given.
With respect to the relative chronology, Adam Rutherford, confirms COJ's understanding and that of every person currently considered an authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Adam Rutherford agrees completely with me, too, on the relative chronology. If he was using the Babylonian Chronicles correctly then he is saying that COJ is right, and the Watchtower is wrong. His information would mostly just confirm COJ, not challenge him. COJ goes further and takes into consideration the rest of the astronomical evidence which Rutherford also nearly had right -- only two years off. Rutherford indicates that the current Watchtower is 22 years off in the absolute, and 20 years off in the relative. 
His information could only have been use to challenge and refute the Watchtower.