ComfortMyPeople

This is a very odd question. It's such a well-known fact that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597 BCE. How could they, unless they were prophetic that a new "Christian" era would begin 590-some years later?  They do mention what went on in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the first year, the second year, etc,. . . on up to the 11th year when they are broken off and missing from that point through the rest of his reign. This is exactly what I quoted to you from Dr Wiseman. Dr. Wiseman agrees that there are many methods to determine the BCE equivalent of those years, but naturally he would agree with me and everyone else, that the Chronicles themselves on their own do not contain BC/BCE year markings.
I can't believe that you might have thought those dates were actually on the Babylonian Chronicles. Those dates are determined from dozens of archaeological references to astronomical events during the Neo-Babylonian empire. They even coincide with Egyptian records, Assyrian records, Persian records, and Greek records.
  They refer to just almost exactly the same thing. In practice they mean the same. I prefer BCE over BC for the same reasons that the Watchtower does.
It's pretty obvious that you aren't understanding the evidence provided by all the authorities and experts that the Watchtower magazine quotes from. I have already explained how the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be associated with his 18th year through simple math. 
The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with 568 BCE. There is a tablet for his 37th year with many astronomy observations that can ONLY refer to celestial events in 568 BCE. 
If you can't see that this also associates the prior year, his 36th year with 569 BCE, and his 35th year with 570 BCE, and his 25th year with 580, and his 15th year with 590, and his 18th year with 587 BCE, then I'm pretty sure there is no further use discussing this with you. 
Perhaps one more question for you to try to answer would clear it up.
If you can answer it, then great. We can go on. If you can't or won't answer it, then I see no reason for continuing to discuss the topic with you:
If Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is 568 BCE, then what BCE year would be his 18th year?

So far, the Watchtower has not been able to present even one scholarly insight contradicting the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. And yes, I am suggesting that the experts the Watchtower has quoted from as authorities are ALL correct. If it's "my deception" then it is also the deception of ALL the experts the Watchtower has depended on for scholarly insights. 
 Your projection about "mind games" is unnecessary. I have never denied that I agree with the experts and authorities the Watchtower has quoted from and referenced for scholarly insights. 
As you can see above I said you cannot determine Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year using the 18-year cycle from 568 BCE, whatever that means. There is no 18-year cycle involved here. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE is not based on any 18-year cycles, nor is there any 18-year cycle that would take you from his 37th year to his 18th year. 
You are evidently confusing any mention of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year with something you are calling an "18-year cycle." When I turned 18 year's old it wasn't based on an 18-year cycle. When I turned 19, it wasn't based on a 19-year cycle. It was simply my 18th year, then my 19th year. No cycles involved. From what I can tell, you like the word "cycles" only because you seem to think it can help you manipulate the simple match I gave you to find a year that's 18 or 19 (or 20) years off from what the simple math actually tells you -- by throwing in an undefined "cycle."

All right. Since you won't try to answer the question yourself, I'll start here with your latest questions and work backwards to the point where I already answered them the first time.   
Don't know and don't care. You are the one who clearly cares more about COJ. I suppose you could look it up.
I am certainly not, as you say: "Evading the question about the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar." The Bible indicates that his reign lasted very close to 43 years; so I believe he had a 43rd year, therefore I believe he had a 37th. There are many business tablets dated to that year, along with one of the oldest and most famous astronomical diaries. I have no problem with any of the information on any of them. I am able to confirm that the diary dated that year does indeed refer to astronomy events that can be calculated to 568 BCE and 567 BCE. Although there are always a few readings that can be quite similar to any other year (even this year, 2024 CE) there are a lot of them that can ONLY have happened in that particular year 568 BCE.
I have no way of verifying whether some or any of the historical information is true, meaning whether Nebuchadnezzar himself was actually involved in any campaigns referenced for that same year. At least we know that the Babylonians were more forthright about their defeats and their fears than say, the Assyrian and many Egyptian records, so I am willing to give the information on the astronomical tablet the benefit of the doubt.
As to what seems like a specific question that asks for solid evidence solid evidence that the tablets in question that refer to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar were specifically generated for the "destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC"
This seems a lot like asking me to provide solid evidence that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were specifically generated  to help George Washington win the Revolutionary War in the previous century before Lincoln. Why would I want to find evidence to support something I have never claimed, and a premise that I find completely ridiculous? I will never want to or try to provide evidence that whatever Nebuchadnezzar was reported to have done in his 37th year was specifically generated for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.  
Perhaps you only meant to ask if a tablet that indicates that his 37th year was 568 BCE somehow also provides evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587. Of course it doesn't. All it does is provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. If someone's is proven to be 37 years old this year, then that is absolute PROOF that they were 27 years old 10 years earlier, and that they were 18 years old 19 years earlier. So any true evidence that Nebuchadnezzar was in his 37th year in 568 BCE (if true) is also evidence that 27th year was 10 years earlier, and his 18th year was 19 years earlier, therefore, 587 BCE. 
If you don't agree with the points I just highlighted in red, above, we probably could just stop the conversation right here and stop wasting each other's time, with your evasions and my need to repeat the same answers over and over. So I'll go on to the next, but I am also asking you if you agree with the points I just highlighted in red in that last paragraph. Are you willing to at least respond to that question about whether you agree to only what's in red?
That will give us a place to start, and then we can move on to whether you believe that there is really any TRUE evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568 BCE.

@George88Also, you can throw out your reliance on COJ as a boogeyman, and just use the "expert" ,, researchers, and authorities that the Watchtower Society quotes instead:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, . . . D. D. Luckenbill: . . .—Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia . . .  A. T. Olmstead, . . .—Assyrian Historiography, . . . Professor A. W. Ahl (Outline of Persian History). . . . Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975 . . . . .A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . .  (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, . . . 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) . . .The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. . . .  . . . D. J. Wiseman
Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, p. 1) . . . Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971 . . . Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler . . . Professor O. Neugebauer . . . —The Exact Sciences in Antiquity,. . . . George Rawlinson . . . . P. J. Wiseman, [same as D. J. Wiseman, above.]
Or we can use persons on the following lists of experts, researchers and authors found in the 2011 Watchtower about VAT 4956:
*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
[all text snippets below taken directly from the article's footnotes, with only a few repetitions]
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, published 1975, 2000 reprint, page 8. Neo-Babylonian Business and Administrative Documents, by Ellen Whitley Moore, published 1935, page 33. Archimedes, Volume 4, New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, “Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers,” by John M. Steele, published 2000, page 36. Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1972, page 3. . . . Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, pages 3, 90, 106. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VIII, (Tablets From Sippar 3) by Erle Leichty, J. J. Finkelstein, and C.B.F. Walker, published 1988, pages 25, 35. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VII, (Tablets From Sippar 2) by Erle Leichty and A. K. Grayson, published 1987, page 36. Neriglissar—King of Babylon, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1994, page 232. The month on the tablet is Ajaru (second month). —Nabonidus and Belshazzar—A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by Raymond P. Dougherty, published 1929, page 61. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 2, No. 4, 1948, “A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,” by A. Sachs, pages 282-283. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History,” by R. J. van der Spek, pages 94, 102. 16. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47. 17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004,  . . . (An Astronomical Observer’s Text of the 37th Year Nebuchadnezzar II), by Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst F. Weidner, pages 67-76, . . . (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, (“The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis,” by F. R. Stephenson and David M. Willis, in Under One Sky—Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen,  This analysis was made with the astronomy software entitled TheSky6™. In addition, the analysis was augmented by the comprehensive freeware program Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts (CDC) and a date converter provided by the U.S. Naval Observatory. . . . I just found another:
*** w69 3/15 p. 187 Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time ***
The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, E. R. Thiele, p. 53.
 
So, let's forget about your precious need for COJ's association with the dates in question, and only make use of the same resources and authorities that the Watchtower thought useful to list. 

@George88, You also still attempt the same thing scholarJW attempted several times with me in the past by trying to claim that this is apostate data, that it is COJ methodology. This time around, even scholarJW admitted that COJ only repeated the standard evidence given by others. So I doubt that this particular "ruse" is working so well any more. Here are just some of your examples:
It's a clever ruse, only for those who don't realize that Carl Olof Johnson had nothing to do with this data. In the next post I'll supply some names of persons that the WTS thinks are better to quote from. None of them have ever shown support for the WTS Chronology, however.

@George88: I know that your accusations that I am the one deflecting are untrue, and I'm pretty sure that the 3+ people on this forum who might still be following the conversation also figured that out many, many pages ago. But I will go ahead and answer your questions one more time, even though I already responded directly to all of them. Perhaps, by comparison, it will serve to further highlight your attempts to divert and evade and dodge. 
I will mention up front however, that I already knew that you and scholarJW would do nothing but evade such a simple question, but the more important point is that this type of evasion is true of ALL Witnesses who know the answer. It's even seen in the very careful wording of the Insight book's Chronology article. Once you do more research on your own, you begin to realize that the WTS publications, especially since 1981, had to start choosing their words much more carefully so as to avoid admitting what they now knew to be true, and what they didn't want readers to know. I'm embarrassed by the technique, because it's also a type of evasion. The 1969 Watchtower eclipse mistake and the 2011 Watchtower that fell for Fururi's fumbling fiasco were also embarrassing, but the culprit was probably just a lot of "wishful thinking." Agenda driven research is typically myopic.
So I will answer your questions one more time in one of my next posts, but before I do, I will remind our expansive audience that the simple question to you was:
What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? 
Here are your responses:
You simply evade, evade, evade, and then try to claim that I am the one evading. 
Also, you can throw out your reliance on COJ as a boogeyman, and just use the "expert" authors and researchers that the Watchtower Society quotes instead:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, . . . D. D. Luckenbill: . . .—Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia
. . .  A. T. Olmstead, . . .—Assyrian Historiography, . . . Professor A. W. Ahl (Outline of Persian History). . . . Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975 . . . . .A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . .  (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, . . . 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) . . .The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. . . .  . . . (Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, p. 1) . . . Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971 . . . Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler . . . Professor O. Neugebauer . . . —The Exact Sciences in Antiquity,. . . . George Rawlinson . . . . P. J. Wiseman, 
Or we can use persons on the following lists of experts, researchers and authors found in the 2011 Watchtower about VAT 4956:
*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
[all text snippets below taken directly from the article's footnotes, with only a few repetitions]
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, published 1975, 2000 reprint, page 8. Neo-Babylonian Business and Administrative Documents, by Ellen Whitley Moore, published 1935, page 33. Archimedes, Volume 4, New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, “Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers,” by John M. Steele, published 2000, page 36. Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1972, page 3. . . . Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, pages 3, 90, 106. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VIII, (Tablets From Sippar 3) by Erle Leichty, J. J. Finkelstein, and C.B.F. Walker, published 1988, pages 25, 35. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VII, (Tablets From Sippar 2) by Erle Leichty and A. K. Grayson, published 1987, page 36. Neriglissar—King of Babylon, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1994, page 232. The month on the tablet is Ajaru (second month). —Nabonidus and Belshazzar—A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by Raymond P. Dougherty, published 1929, page 61. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 2, No. 4, 1948, “A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,” by A. Sachs, pages 282-283. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History,” by R. J. van der Spek, pages 94, 102. 16. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47. 17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004,  . . . (An Astronomical Observer’s Text of the 37th Year Nebuchadnezzar II), by Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst F. Weidner, pages 67-76, . . . (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, (“The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis,” by F. R. Stephenson and David M. Willis, in Under One Sky—Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen,  This analysis was made with the astronomy software entitled TheSky6™. In addition, the analysis was augmented by the comprehensive freeware program Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts (CDC) and a date converter provided by the U.S. Naval Observatory. . . . So, let's forget about your precious need for COJ's association with the dates in question, and only make use of the same resources that the Watchtower thought useful to list. 

I'll try one more time, just so it may be even more obvious to anyone who cares: that even for a Witness who claims the following (below) they will still dodge the question:
Imagine, having made a thorough analysis of all available data, and still being unable to bring yourself to answer a simple question. Instead, you rely on tired old tactics of poisoning the well by calling the evidence "apostate." Or pretending the evidence somehow comes from COJ. Or making the empty claim, without evidence, that the data is being distorted. 
Figured as much.
You don't give any evidence about "their true purpose." You appear to disagree with the Insight book where it says that inscriptions about two eclipses are "helpful" in determining chronology (at least when it's a specific BCE date we can agree with). 
So one more time, for you or anyone else who is interested. Find any fellow Witness who has studied the issue and ask the question:
What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? 

Not me. I think it can be useful for some people and sometimes can even be funny. It's often entertaining, and it can have serious uses, too. It can be revealing in interesting ways related to psychology and human interaction. I think the world and Witnesses too need to be ready for an onslaught of fake people, fake news, fake information, and no one will have the time to figure out who's really who online, or even on the news. People can scrub their own accounts and try to start fresh (like a certain NYT's "journalist" who was just outed as a propagandist for Israeli intelligence). I don't like Nikki Haley's "true ID" proposal because people use identities as protection from harassment, political persecution, religious persecution, or even from being shunned by loved ones in their local congregation over the things they are learning. 
Sock puppets don't bother me. I personally don't want to use one. But there are times when their use can be informative. I've seen you use one in a good way, even very recently, to raise a question, and make an informative comment, and sometimes that keeps a conversation going for a good purpose. It's only when people under any of their names are being obnoxious, divisive, causing dissension, being nasty, etc., that I have a problem. Also, there are some people here who don't respond well to a string of downvotes at everything they say. And there are some who use their sock puppets for no other reason than to build up their reputation with upvotes, which doesn't hurt anyone. But I don't like to see a person get discouraged or offended at constant downvotes so I will sometimes "out" a person for doing that because then they will know it's ONLY this or that person, and it's not a "real" response.
Here's an example that could feel offensive to @Arauna:

Notice that I said nothing controversial, and added that I hoped Arauna would say something to us about how she is doing these days since we hadn't heard from her in a while. But you downvoted it. Is she going to think that some new person doesn't like her and doesn't want to know how she is doing? In the past another one of your identities told her multiple times that she was foolish for disagreeing with you. She got used to that from you. So if she knows it's just you again, she won't be overly concerned. 

That's quite an admission. And I'm sure you know that you could be disfellowshipped if you made this same  "unequivocal" statement and stuck to it publicly in your congregation after "counsel" or "reproof."  So I seriously hope you are careful about it, especially as you earlier mentioned that you hope to have your theory published someday. 
 Actually, you have found evidence that Jerusalem met it's fall in 597 not it's end, not its destruction that the Bible says came about 10 years later. You haven't proven the Bible wrong yet. Those Babylonian Chronicles mention that Nebuchadnezzar went up against Jerusalem in his 8th year. So if you say his 8th year was 597, where does that put his 18th year, 10 years later. Sounds like 597 minus 10 is 587 is what you are saying his 18th year was. Unless you are manipulating something for other purposes. 
*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, . . . at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon

 

That's correct, and you also have things going on in China and Europe at the time. Therefore the events have nothing to do with the fact that this and ALL OTHER astronomical diaries and observations from his time point to 568 as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is the same thing as pointing to 587 as the 18th year, and 586 as the 19th year. It absolutely does not matter what events were going on at the same time. You are right that they have no value for the year stipulated by the tablets.
Interestinig isn't it? This has come up before in old topics, that Jeremiah may have meant the expression "70 years" in much the same way as it looks like Isaiah used it. "The typical or "fated" lifespan of a kingdom" like that of Babylon. As if it were already a cliche about Assyria, and the "lifespan" of a kingdom rarely went beyond a dynasty of say, father/son/grandson before a new dynasty would begin. It may not have been literal, a literal, exact 70 years, but just used a way of reminding people that empires and dynasties come and go, and Jehovah will use that same lifespan cycle, of the rise and fall of empires, to both punish and then release his people. In that sense Babylon's "70 years" becomes Judah's "70 years" of reversal. Not that either one needs to be exact or even needs to coincide. The "70 years" given to one is the cause of the "70 years" of the other. 
I personally don't buy it, though, because it's so obvious that the fall of the Assyrian Empire was most apparent 70 years before the fall of Babylon was most apparent. From 609 to 539 is a much better theory than 587 to 517 for the "flip side" of the 70 years for the Temple. I think you have implied that the Temple might have actually been effectively destroyed in 597 or at least at the Babylonian Chronicle's event associated with 597. It makes for an interesting "compromise" only 10 years off the WTS date, and 10 years off the evidence from all the astronomy dating for NEB II.
You said that wrong. Accession year is used so that his 37th regnal year IS also 568 and not 567, according to the way Babylonians were required to count. If you had used a different method of counting regnal years (NON-Accession year counting) then the 37th year would be one year EARLIER not later, because his accession year (the zero-th year) would have already counted as his 1st, therefore his Babylonian counted 10th would be counted in NON-Accession as his 9th. And his 37th would be counted as his 36th. The year earlier was 569 BCE, not 567 BCE. But G88, BTK57, etc., never admit error.
He didn't say it was destroyed in 597, though, did he? He said it fell. Just like Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539. It wasn't destroyed then. For most cities, it wasn't worth destroying if they could still be forced to pay tribute, keep the fields planted, keep the vineyards dressed, etc. There is more wealth to transfer to a king when you DON'T destroy the city but take away their elites who keep most of the trading profits from the "people of the land," and replace those elites with soldiers who are required to take most of those same profits back to their king. 
Also, note that the Bible said it took him about a year and a half of siege to take Jerusalem and finally break through its walls. If you notice the wording carefully in Jeremiah, it appears that most of the ones exiled in 597 were apparently NOT from Jerusalem itself. That happened in year 18/19.
(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile:
in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.
 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.
In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
As you also indicated elsewhere above: the opposite is true. You need to work with the dates by their face value, and not try to disprove them just because you assume certain events must have happened elsewhere at a different time. I can say I was 60 in in 2017 and that I saw a total solar eclipse in NYC, but you can't say I wasn't just because you claim that I should have been 60 during the Viet Nam war, or that there was another total solar eclipse in 1925, so THAT must have been my 60th year. The desired event has nothing to do with the date. My birth certificate doesn't change for any events, my driver's license doesn't change for any events, my passport doesn't change for any events. 

That would mean that they counted Nabopolassar's years differently from all the other Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian and Persian kings in Ptolemy's writings and in the original Babylonian inscriptions. Anything's possible. But you appear to be more concerned with whether this Nabopolassar was co-reigning with a different Nebuchadnezzar than the one who claimed he was Nabopolassar's son.
I'm only talking about the mistake the writer made in 1969 in presenting the idea that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse. 

It's pretty simple.
Ptolemy said that the Babylonians reported an eclipse that was only PARTIAL in the 5th year of Nabopolassar.  Today, that exactly described PARTIAL eclipse can be calculated to 621 BCE.  That makes perfect consistent sense because it meshes perfectly with 100 other astronomical observations that would also indicate that 621 BCE is the 5th year of Nabopolassar. But the Watchtower claims that 621 BCE is the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, so the WTS needs this eclipse to have happened in 641 BCE, otherwise 1914 doesn't work. So a Watchtower contributor or writer looks at the eclipse log for 641 BCE, and lo and behold there was a total eclipse that year.  So the Watchtower writer/editor says: Look Ptolemy and Babylon say that a partial eclipse happened in 621, but we found an eclipse that doesn't match that description in 641. Even though it doesn't match, we'll go with it, and say it's even BETTER than the right one that matches, because the 641 eclipse is TOTAL not partial. It's the same as if this happened, not that it ever would:
BTK59 says, I found a report with a map of a burial mound of Cherokee Native Americans in Dahlonega, Georgia, USA containing tiny "Indian arrowheads" of the exact shape that the Cherokees made. I wondered if the map was accurate and if I could find one of those tiny arrowheads. And look, it worked, I just found this Cherokee-style arrowhead exactly where the map pointed.  JWI says, Wait, No. I just found a large flint spearhead in burial mound of Osage Native Americans in Joplin Missouri. This must be what you were really looking for, because it was found in a burial mound just like you said. Now BTK59 has two options here. He could say: BTK59 says: JWI, you are a despicable fool. The map said the tiny arrowheads were in Georgia, and that's where I found an arrowhead exactly matching the description. And now you bring me a large spearhead from hundreds of miles off the map. And you say it's the same just because they were both in burial mounds. Or, BTK59 could say: "I see no conflict with this observation, JWI." 

@xero,
It might have been an innocent set of mistakes after mistakes after mistakes by Furuli, who may have been a bit myopic and started out with extreme confirmation bias, believing that the 588 date MUST be right at all costs for the 37th year. After all, this was the same method the Watchtower (above) had suggested in 1969, so it MUST be true. But it still comes across as a "pious fraud." 
But even more serious, I think, than the potential "pious fraud" unquestionably accepted from Furuli, is the method the Watchtower itself used to hide a very important fact. The hidden fact is directly related to the admission that the tablet contains more PLANETARY observations than LUNAR observations. Why are they just barely mentioned and overlooked?
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
In addition to the aforementioned eclipse, there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. These describe the position of the moon or planets in relation to certain stars or constellations. There are also eight time intervals between the risings and settings of the sun and the moon.
Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956.
Really? This last sentence was completely misworded. It should have said the very opposite:
Because lunar positions are more flexible, and more likely to repeat, even coincidentally and sometimes PREDICTABLY from one year to the next and planetary positions often never repeat again for hundreds of years, this would mean that close matches for the planetary observations would therefore be much more important for determining the BCE dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.
Instead we see some sleight of hand here about supposedly superior reliability. When it should have said "inferior reliability" or "superior flexibility." 
But here's the kicker. Rolf Furuli ADMITS in his book that the planetary positions can ONLY be a match to 568 BCE. (Not his goal of promoting 588.) In other words, it was always a worthless exercise to try to overcome the lunar data when he already had to admit that the greater number of readings were for the far superior and more reliable planetary data that he could not even attempt to dismiss in any reasonable way.

@xero, here is the comparison done by Ann O'maly. I got almost exactly the same results running the tests on "Stellarium" and "The Sky." Keep in mind, that the moon pretty much travels across the same path from night to night, so there will ALWAYS be other years when very similar lunar/stellar configurations are seen by coincidence alone. In fact, every 18 years 11 days 8 hours the moon will repeat an eclipse, very often with an additional eclipse usually visible 5 or 6 months from that 18 year cycle.
You are always going to get SOME very similar readings in ANY two years that are compared.
The paper is much longer but it is well summarized with the chart I copied there and here:
Posted December 11, 2020 The older the diary, the more it has been recopied, and the more likely a few errors would creep into it. This will be true of VAT 4956 for which the planetary positions interspersed throughout certain lines of the diary provide excellent evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568/7 BCE. But the lunar positions on other interspersed lines of the same diary match only 17 dates of the 23 lunar positions, and 17 out of those 23 positions are a match (73.9%).
These are discussed very well here, where the author ("Ann O'maly") has compared the accuracy score, to another proposed date, 20 years further back for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year:
https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com
The final tabulation is almost identical to the results anyone can get with computer-based astronomy programs. The final column on the right is the score given to the lunar positions for 568/7 which matches the timeline above. (Green is good, red is not.) The left column is a good indication of how well (actually, how poorly!) the lunar positions might match a date 20 years earlier, or even perhaps for any other random year. This attempt to make it match another date scores about 5 out of the 23 positions (21.7% vs 73.9% for the more accurate year).

It's not that Jehovah doesn't "watch" errors, but he is all-knowing and all-understanding and has provided the ransom as a means for forgiveness. So he doesn't watch for errors to slap us down like a human boss might, and he doesn't judge by the number of errors.
But there is one exception for humans. We are to watch for errors in "teaching." And since ours is a teaching ministry, even for the youngest among us, we MUST watch for errors when it comes to teaching wrong doctrine and the possibility of misleading others:
(Matthew 16:12) . . .Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of bread, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . . (James 3:1) . . .Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment.  (Galatians 6:1) . . .Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. . . . (Ephesians 4:14, 15) . . .So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. But speaking the truth. . . (Matthew 23:15) . . .Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves. (Hebrews 13:17) . . .Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you. (Matthew 18:6) But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea.
 

Spoiler alert, @xero: Most of the readings are a much better fit for 568, and only a few can be said to be OK for 588. Except for the single well-documented, copyist's error, that was recognized 100 years ago, most of the other supposed "matches" for 588 require that we also believe the Babylonians had made a mistake in starting their new year more than a month later than it should have been started. Not only is there no evidence that this EVER happened, the Babylonians were much more careful and meticulous about which lunar month started the New Year than the Hebrew calendar. The Hebrews never added the leap month except just after the 12th month. The Babylonians to make sure the New Year always started even closer to the Spring Equinox, would often add the leap month just after the 12th month but sometimes calibrated to add it just after the 6th month when necessary. (This is done because the lunar months only provide about 354 days in the year, so that loss of 11 days from the solar year requires a leap month every 3 years or so.) But we already have excellent evidence for the exact method the Babylonians were already using for their leap months, because the thousands of business tablets identified whether there had just been a month 6 or month 12 leap month. (aka intercalary month)
That means that even most of the "coincidental" readings are bogus, even though Ann O'maly generously allowed the 588 readings themselves to be compared against 568, anyway, in spite of the fact that they weren't real readings because the month was impossible. 

Yes. It's one of the first sets of items I ever checked against the astronomy applications. It's a summary of Rolf Furuli's book. And this is an even bigger embarrassment to the WTS than the Nabopolassar 5th year eclipse that I mentioned in my previous post. 
The article was smart not to use Furuli's name, because his previous book on chronology had also been full of some amateur errors. (And in order to hide the fact that he was merely trying to create "scholarly-looking" support for the WT chronology he said he was developing the "Oslo Chronology." That's where he's from.) And using his name would have led people to the Internet, where his book and his theory had already been thoroughly debunked. And, in the worst-case scenario, it would have potentially driven more Witnesses to do what you are doing, obtaining software to look it up for themselves.
But unfortunately, while removing Furuli's name, the article tends to imply a kind of "editorial 'we'" which implicates the WTS itself, and the article therefore implies that the WTS knows others who have validated Furuli, or has itself tried to verify these readings. Obviously, they didn't or they would discover exactly what you will discover when you check it out for yourself.
The problem starts with the fact that there is a well known copyist's error on the tablet. (Most all the astronomy tablets we have are copies, or even copies of copies.) There is actually more than one error, but none of the others are significant. This copyists error is considered to be off by one day, although some experts say that it may actually be that it was the name of the star that is off, and it is still the correct day. (When I use the term "experts" I mean many of the same people that the WTS quotes as experts in "Insight" etc.)
I wrote up my own findings, but they are not as well-documented and well-presented as has been done by others. The person who presented it best in my opinion has been on this forum. Her name is Ann O'maly, although I expect that's a "screen name" meant to be a pun on the word "anomaly." Her write-up on it is on academia.com, and we also discussed it here on the forum. I'll point you to both in the next couple of posts, and we can discuss it again from there.

I'm not the one saying it is significant. I'm only saying that all evidence so far consistently points to 587 BCE as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It's up to you to decide whether that fact has any significance:
(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, . . .
 

Makes you wonder why the only definitive way they determine Cambyses 7th year, then, is through eclipses, doesn't it.
The fact that a two hundred years later, Greeks trusted the same Babylonian chronology which was based heavily on astronomy, and began attaching Babylonian chronology to their own calendar systems, is also revealing. (Archonships and Olympiads).
Read what you quoted carefully and you will see that it is really saying that the ONLY real information that ties to BCE dates is Ptolemy, and contemporary cuneiform [business] tablets. With Ptolemy it was the eclipse and the King List (Ptolemy's "Royal" Canon). Diodorus, Africans, and Eusebius, who come onto the picture MUCH LATER, are indirectly relying on the same Babylonian records.
The later attempts to tie dates from Babylonian records back into the Olympiads had variable results. Here are some of them, that refer to the Olympiad era of dating:
-------------------
[evidence says 562 not 572]
[That last  highlighted one seems perfectly in accord with current astronomical evidence, that Josiah died in 609 BCE and Cyrus first year was 70 years later, in 539 BCE.]
The idea was apparently that 70 years for Babylonian domination was 609 to 539 and the 70 years of desolation on the city and temple would have been about 590 to 520 -- see Zechariah 1 :12 & 7:4,
[This is accurately counted from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar as stated in Daniel 1:1]
[off only by about 4 years, since Nineveh evidently fell in 612 BCE]
[645 - 32 = 612?]
Note that if the 55th Olympiad is 560 (which it is) then the 47th is as little as 28/29 years earlier, or 588-589 BCE. Right about the time when Nebuchadnezzar would have begun the siege ending in 587 BCE.
------------------
It's curious, isn't it, that many of the same ones who were using the Olympiad method of dating put the destruction of the Temple around -590.
590 is only a couple of years from 587 BCE, and not so far off from the siege of the city which would have begun closer to 589 BCE. 
This must be why so many early "historians" and "chronographers" trying to place the end of the 70 years of Judea's servitude ended it closer to 520:
--------------
Josephus first went with the common-sense idea that the 70 years began with the destruction of Jerusalem and ended with the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus. But his final work after a couple more decades of quoting from sources made him change that chronology to say that there were only 50 years between those two events. That would mean one of two things; that the 70 years started with the fall of Assyria when Babylon became a world power and ended when Persia became the world power. Or it was a separate 70 years (Zechariah) that started with the destruction of the Temple and ended with the rebuilding of it in Zerubbabel's time.
Sorry for the messy formatting. Trying to work from an iPhone. My laptop is back home.

A high academic standard, yes. He graduated from MIT. But he left a trail of insults on this forum that would make a sailor blush. And that was mostly in response to foolish goading from @scholar JWand back and forth escalations of insults between him and [username="César Chávez"], it's not like people were generally cursing at him and he was just responding in kind. 
"César Chávez" is still with us here by the way, under different user names. (For those who care, that apparently also includes the JW Closed Club, so far just as an auditor, not a participant.)

Because of the need for the WTS publications to sow seeds of doubt about Ptolemy, the Watchtower made the following statement about that same 621 BCE eclipse. The mistake they made is pretty obvious once you have seen Ptolemy's writing.
*** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186 Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time ***
LUNAR ECLIPSES
Lunar eclipses, as found in Ptolemy’s canon and presumably drawn from data in the cuneiform records, have been used in efforts to substantiate the dates usually given for particular years of the Neo-Babylonian kings. But even though Ptolemy may have been able to calculate accurately the dates of certain eclipses in the past, this does not prove that his transmission of historical data is correct. His relating of eclipses to the reigns of certain kings may not always be based on the facts. Additionally, the frequency of lunar eclipses certainly does not add great strength to this type of confirmation.
For example, a lunar eclipse in 621 B.C.E. (April 22) is used as proof of the correctness of the Ptolemaic date for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. However, another eclipse could be cited twenty years earlier in 641 B.C.E. (June 1) to correspond with the date that Bible chronology would indicate for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. Besides, this latter eclipse was total, whereas the one in 621 B.C.E. was partial.
To me, that's just embarrassing. I don't think it was 'deviant scholarship' as @Arauna would have called it had I made a similar mistake. I think it was just grasping at any straws possible to sow seeds of doubt in Ptolemy's work. The problem, of course, is that Ptolemy said it was partial, and it shows up as partial in my software exactly as Ptolemy reported. But the Watchtower claimed that a better one 20 years earlier would be a TOTAL eclipse. In other words, someone in the Writing Dept found a reference, or went to the trouble themselves to find an eclipse exactly 20 years earlier (necessary to feed the 1914 theory) and somehow overlooked the fact that they were choosing a NON-matching eclipse over the matching eclipse. Rolf Furuli made the exact same attempt with lunar information from Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and made some of the same "wishful-thinking" errors over and over again.  
 

@xero, I think in your checking of eclipse lists for the time, you are aware that Ptolemy's Almagest also recorded this one which exactly matches 21/22 April 621 BC:
As you are aware, the 5th year of Nabopolassar in 621 BCE puts the 14th year of Nabopolassar in 612 BCE.
In the 5th year of Nabopolassar (127th year from Nabonassar, 27/28 Athyr of the Egyptian calendar a lunar eclipse began at the end of the 11th hour in Babylon. The maximum obscuration was 1/4 of the diameter from the south (Almagest V 14). Here is the translated text from the Almagest itself. He runs an era going all the way back to Nabonassar, and with some of his readings he also includes the time from the death of Alexander the Great AND Nabonassar AND the parallel Egyptian calendar AND to the archonship era in Athens.
Below I also included the first portion of the next eclipse he records regarding Cyrus' son Cambyses, it's one of the two that the "Insight" book uses to date Cyrus. Of course the WTS publications don't tell you that it is also found in Ptolemy, for obvious reasons. Ptolemy lists 10 Babylonian eclipses and 4 of them have already been found duplicated in cuneiform tablets from Babylon:
https://classicalliberalarts.com/resources/PTOLEMY_ALMAGEST_ENGLISH.pdf
page 253:

 

AlanF commented quite often on this forum when he was alive. He and @scholar JW had a history going back for many years —decades—according to scholar JW. Same with Ann O’maly whom scholar JW also appeared to have communicated with for many past years. 
I hated AlanF’s position on evolution and complete dismissal of much of Genesis but I appreciated that both he and Ann O’maly were much more knowledgeable about neo-Babylonian chronology that I am. By a long shot. They both corrected me publicly with good evidence on several mistakes I made here while learning the topic. I always appreciate corrections by anyone, even a "public reproof." 

Those particular two events are simply Saros interpolations, which won't make as much sense as direct evidence until we are ready to re-build the entire king list and test it against the known ancient "spreadsheets" of Saros eclipses (LBAT 1415, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420 & 1421) listing them for every "18 years" -- and then combined with evidence from another document. This was why I wanted to start with Nebuchadnezzar and then work backward and forward from there. 
However, I can do one better. It turns out that I was wrong when I said there were no observations/events associated with  Nabopolassar's 14th year. I had stopped looking at further astronomical readings when I was satisfied I had seen enough to assure myself. 
But there may be a couple more, one of which should touch on Nabopolassar's 14th:
https://www.jenseits-des-horizonts.de/download_pdf/bsa_044_04.pdf



So it's those first two tablets, referenced in the footnotes 3 & 4. The first is Hunger, Sachs, and Steele, No 52.
That tablet is reported elsewhere to show observations for:
Nabopolassar  7 = 619 BCE Nabopolassar 12 = 614 BCE Nabopolassar 13 = 613 BCE Nabopolassar 14 = 612 BCE [edited to add: possibly stops at Nab 13=613BCE] Since the above PDF shows the readings stopping in 613 and doesn't include Nabopolassar 14 = 612 BCE, perhaps it is partly cut off or damaged at that point. Or the readings go past December of 613 still in the same regnal year 613, but technically 612. I haven't seen a picture of it, although I might have a photocopy of the correct pages of Hermann Hunger's "Astronomical Diaries and Texts V" in my files from a time I copied several pages from those volumes at the NYPL Reference Library. I kind of doubt I have it though, because I knew nothing about this one when I did my readings for the posts here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/?do=findComment&comment=152186 
Another one, (Text Number 5) related to the above, is also in Hermann Hunger's Astronomical Diaries and Texts V, and it has the year of the king (16) but not the name of the king. It reports an eclipse that matches September 15, 610 BCE. That is of course the 16th year of Nabopolassar, as it lands right there in among the readings above in Text Number 52.
I'm out of state right now, but will check these out for myself in a few days.

I already have, and I have never thought there was a problem with that date. After all it comes from copies of exactly the same CONTEMPORARY records that give us Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year as 587 BCE. And it comes from exactly the same records that put the reconstruction of the Temple in Zechariah's time nearly 70 years later. (Closer to 517 BCE). That makes more sense of the Bible record that says a lot of the people who saw the new temple being constructed cried out louder than the younger ones who raised their voice at the new construction. That didn't make sense to me if these people were about 90 and up (Psalm 90:10). But it made more sense if they were closer to 70 and up, like you and me.
Also Zechariah said: 
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
Zechariah would have written this a little closer to 520 BCE, a date that the WTS publications have agreed with. So 70 years earlier would have been the siege that started a year and an half earlier according to Jeremiah. That would put it about 589 according to the astronomical records.