ComfortMyPeople

I referenced the idea of solving a mystery because the Revelation book includes this event under the heading (Chapter 34): "AN AWESOME MYSTERY SOLVED."
I listened to Knorr's talk recorded in Cleveland, found here (https://archive.org/details/PeaceCanItLastByNathanKnorr)while following along in the "Peace -- Can it Last?" booklet which says inside the booklet that it is a transcript of the talk. It is not actually a transcript, although it's possible that it was intended as one. The booklet states:
The above is the text of the speech "Peace — Can It Last?" delivered by the president of the WATCH TOWER SOCIETY, Sunday, September 20, 1942, at the public meeting of the New World Theocratic Assembly. This unique Assembly included more than eighty simultaneous conventions in cities in America, British Isles, Sweden, Central and South America, West and South Africa, and Hawaii. The president spoke at the key convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and his speech was conducted by a network of telephone lines direct to like conventions in fifty-one other cities in the United States, besides being radio-east over WBBR. The combined attendance in the United States at the lecture was 126,000. The speech is here published in behalf of the millions of persons of good-will who did not hear. But the transcript contains many items of interest that were either skipped by Knorr, or were not part of the original transcript he read from. I'll mark in red the portions that were skipped in the speech.
 
But the war precedes a peace; and in a radio address at Philadelphia, broadcast around the world, concerning postwar leadership, the attorney general of the United States said (July 3, 1942): "It seems to me a wholesome thing that men are thinking in 1942 of ways to win a peace, and acting on their thoughts — yes, even now, while the war is yet to be won. It means that at last the realization has come to us that world war and world peace cannot be dissociated as parts of the same great upheaval. The problems of peace and of war are interdependent." (New York Times, July 4, 1942) Shortly thereafter the ex-president of the nation said in a broadcast from San Francisco: "Whatever the modifying views of our associates in war may be, Americans should have formulated the kind of peace that THEY want. They must make up their minds BEFORE the war ends; otherwise others will make the peace, and not us." (New York Times, July 13, 1942) And in his recent book, on "The Problems of Lasting Peace", it is written: "The purpose of this war, the most terrible of three centuries, is to make a lasting Peace. We must first win the war. But we will not win lasting peace unless we prepare for it. And we can prepare only by full and free public discussion, by the cold surgery of analysis." In May it was revealed that thirty-five government agencies were then engaged in postwar planning. (Stated by T. E. D., May 9, 1942) International discussions, and likewise public forums, are being held on postwar problems. Therefore the question is a timely and urgent one, "Peace — Can It Last?" The answer depends upon how the peace problems are solved. The greatest religious head in "Christendom" claims it his right to hold the world domination, and he is moving to exercise his power and influence in the peace conference, even offering the Vatican in which to hold it. By reason of his concordat with the Fascist dictator of Rome in 1929 he is now a temporal ruler as well as a religious one. The Hierarchy and the religious population which he rules as god declare that the Peace Treaty of 1919 failed because the pope was not in on it. He now appears in a peace role, pluming himself for a suitable place or voice in the coming Peace Conference. If he gains it, and if the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 is followed as to primacy of diplomatic representatives, then he or his official representative should preside as the "dean" of all the conferees. Says one of his American archbishops: "The only enduring peace that will restore the world to sanity and to a sense of the dignity of human personality is the peace of Pope Pius XII." And a monsignor in a radiocast from Washington, D.C., says: "He [that is, Pacelli] whose name is rooted in peace will be the one who will restore peace to the world; for when peace does come it will come, not in the way the world expects or plans it, but in an utterly unsuspected way." — Mgr. F. J. S., February 8, 1942. A United Press dispatch of July 15, from Vichy, France, was therefore of peculiar interest to Americans who believe only in peace by victory, and no negotiated peace with a gangster, and which dispatch reads: "Diplomatic circles said tonight that the Vatican was preparing a peace encyclical, to be published in mid-August, defining Pope Pius XII's ideas of a basis for a negotiated peace and postwar world planning." "An earlier United Press dispatch from Vichy, which apparently had some bearing on this report, was completely censored out except for the statement that 'there was a noticeable rapprochement of the Vatican and non-Catholic powers' recently." (New York Times, July 16,1942) Whom these "non-Catholic powers" include can be surmised, when this fact is remembered, that despite the break between Italy and the United States the secretary of the personal envoy of the president is meantime acting as the representative of this country to the Vatican. The political statesmen of the world are also looking ahead to the peace, anxiously. Some fear the peace worse than they do the war, fearing for a great postwar slump, unemployment, dislocation of industry, communications' breakdown, international debt tangle, anarchy and revolutions in various places, famine and pestilence, and other evils. They hope that the mistakes and blunders of 1919 and following years will not be repeated. A great struggle is foreseen to "lift the living standards from one end of this planet to the other". The Nazi dictator has led his hordes on in world aggression Math the promise of, to quote him, "a social state which must and shall be a model of perfection in every sphere of life"; and the pope has published to the world a five-point program for world peace. Those of a democratic mind hope for a United States of the world, a "family of nations", a "world association" based on the United Nations, including a "world legion". Says one spokesman: "An international constitution and government will be a postwar necessity." Others argue for a "World Bill of Rights". Others say the evidence shows that the hopes of the world are for the League of Nations again; and one college official says that the World Court for international arbitration must be made the key in a revived League. One of the president's own cabinet members says: 'A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers.'  Those rulers and representatives of the people charged with the task of arranging the postwar conditions have a tremendous responsibility, not only before the people, but also before the great Universal Ruler, Jehovah God. One thing to notice, too, is that this is the part of the speech about the victor in the war. Yet, the speech itself doesn't really  come close to mentioning who will be the victor of the war. It even apparently chides the United States for thinking that a peace can only come if the Allied Powers are the victor. And he chides the harlot, Babylon the Great, whose capital is in Vatican City for being ready to ride on the back of whomever shows himself as victor. But it might not have been noticed that Knorr was merely reading various quotes about how various leaders planned to be involved in a post-war peace. Rightly, Knorr never took sides in this -- even in another spot when he mentioned the king of the north and king of the south, he didn't predict which side would come out on top.
More importantly, when Knorr uses the expression "based on the United Nations" he is referring to an existing entity, not one that only appears first in planning stages in 1944 and then shows up for real in 1945. That's why he can quote a cabinet member in the next sentence who already refers to the United Nations as an existing entity when he says: "A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers." Knorr did not predict that the allies would win; allied powers predicted (of course) that the allied powers would win. I think it's fair to say that Knorr probably thought the allied powers would win. But a "United Nations" of some kind would be the only hope of a more lasting peace no matter who won.
The United Nations was actually named by F.D.Roosevelt at the Arcadia Conference and adopted on January 1, 1942. It was already in the news, and it was obvious that the writer of this speech was well aware of these various proposals in the news. (The writer was not Knorr, apparently, as evidenced by the way Knorr reads and misreads several items which sometimes indicates a lack of understanding as to the intended meaning.) But Knorr does not commit to any particular one of these names or organizations as the particular one that would end up reviving an organization like the League of Nations after the war.

Sometimes, the Watchtower publications have pointed back to a time when the Watchtower predicted World War One (WWI) in 1914 and then also predicted that the United Nations would rise up to replace the League of Nations. These two "predictions" have even been paired together and presented nearly back-to-back in our publications. They were even brought up again at the 2014 convention and the 2009 convention. The reason the Watchtower has reviewed these two ideas from our history is probably already obvious and clear, and it has been clearly stated, too.
One of the most recent reviews of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses contains very similar claims, and is found in one of the videos, now also available on tv.jw.org: https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgHistory/pub-ivfa2_x_VIDEO
These online transcripts appear fairly accurate:
Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 1 Out of Darkness.pdf Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 2 Let the Light Shine.pdf Here is the relevant part about 1914:
—Geoffrey W. Jackson—
They realized that 1914 had a significance, —Gerrit Lösch—
When World War I broke out in July, they felt vindicated and it strengthened their faith in the Bible, and in Jehovah’s prophetic Word. Also, it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others. —Anthony Morris III—
Just looking at the sign of the times that Jesus told us to look at is enough, but it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal. Here is the relevant part about the UN and League of Nations:
—Narrator—
. . . And soon, they would boldly proclaim a Bible prophecy that pointed to the outcome of that war. ——Chapter 4: "Taught By Jehovah"——
—Narrator—
The year was 1941. Having taken the lead for 25 momentous years, J. F. Rutherford had become seriously ill and was about to make his final public appearance. . . . The second World War was raging. Some felt that these events could lead directly into Armageddon. In spite of this, in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr—the one next appointed to take the lead among Jehovah's Witnesses—spoke at a convention about a Bible prophecy that indicated that significant events had to occur first. —Knorr (reenactment)—
This international war is not 'the battle of the great day of God Almighty.' Before Armageddon comes, the Scriptures show, a peace must come. —John Wischuk—
There was no peace on the horizon, and yet we said, "Peace—Can It Last?" —Narrator—
Knorr centered attention on Revelation 17:8, which indicates that a figurative wild beast would come into existence, would cease to exist, but then would come back to life. Knorr then drew his listeners' attention to the defunct League of Nations. —Knorr (reenactment)—
The League is in effect in a state of suspended animation and needs to be revived if it is ever to live again. It has gone into the abyss of inaction and ineffectiveness. It "is not." Will the League remain in the pit? Again the Word of God gives answer: The association of worldly nations will rise again. —Narrator—
That association did rise again three years later as the United Nations. —Anthony Morris III—
They didn't know it was going to be called the United Nations, and we don't make that claim. But they knew it was coming out.  
[Should be noted that Morris is claiming something that they "KNEW" in advance but he is also correcting a common claim that not only did Knorr predict the rise of the League of Nations three years ahead of time, but that he even used the term "United Nations." As one person writes on a website "Knorr prophesied in 1942 that the League of Nations would rise out of the abyss. Knorr used the expression 'United Nations.' How could he have known the exact name of the new incarnation, when it wasn't established until 1945?"]
Witnesses got these ideas about a correctly predicted prophecy from an article published a few years later under Knorr's administration in 1960. These quotes should be compared with the actual transcript of the speech Knorr made on September 20, 1942, which was made available as a booklet, and can be found here: http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/booklets/peace.html
The July 15, 1960 Watchtower, page 444, said this:
"In 1942 the “faithful and discreet slave” guided by Jehovah’s unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up." You can also see a reference to the 1942 event in the Revelation book (p.248) on WOL at jw.org: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034
You can also read the following about it in the April 15, 1989 Watchtower, p.14 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034
By divine providence, Jehovah’s Witnesses received enlightenment on that mystery in 1942. . . . Nathan H. Knorr, president of the Watch Tower Society, gave the public talk, “Peace—Can It Last?” Therein he reviewed Revelation 17:8, . . . . Was that Bible-based forecast fulfilled? Truly it was! In 1945 the international “wild beast” emerged from its abyss of inactivity as the United Nations. See also the Kingdom Come book  kc chap. 17 pp. 162-173 and and interesting version of events found in a 1981 Watchtower about why this "insight" was given w81 12/15 pp. 28-30
The Proclaimers book states it like this on page 192-3 (  jv chap. 14 pp. 188-201 )
This time, it involved the United Nations, successor to the League. While World War II was still under way, in 1942, Jehovah’s Witnesses had already discerned from the Bible, at Revelation 17:8, that the world peace organization would rise again, also that it would fail to bring lasting peace. This was explained by N. H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society, in the convention discourse “Peace—Can It Last?” Boldly Jehovah’s Witnesses proclaimed that view of the developing world situation. In 1993 the idea was stated as follows:
“The Disgusting Thing” 12, 13. What was “the disgusting thing,” and—as foreseen by the faithful and discreet slave—when and how was it reestablished? 12 When the end of the second world war was in sight, there was another development. “They will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation.” (Daniel 11:31b) This “disgusting thing,” which Jesus also mentioned, had already been recognized as the League of Nations, the scarlet-colored wild beast that according to Revelation went into the abyss. (Matthew 24:15; Revelation 17:8; see Light, Book Two, page 94.) It did this when World War II broke out. However, at the New World Theocratic Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr, third president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, discussed the prophecy of Revelation 17 and warned that the beast would rise again from the abyss. 13 History bore out the truth of his words. Between August and October 1944, at Dumbarton Oaks in the United States, work was begun on the charter of what would be called the United Nations. The charter was adopted by 51 nations, including the former Soviet Union, and when it came into force on October 24, 1945, the defunct League of Nations in effect came out of the abyss. There are several more examples, but this should suffice. I am struck by how often the point is emphasized that these were Knorr's words, "his words" and that they were a Bible-based forecast "foreseen" and "discerned" and "known" in advance through "divine providence" and "enlightenment" and men being "guided by Jehovah's unerring spirit." This is an odd focus on the insights and discernment of men. These expressions are also dangerously presumptuous in that they are so often applied to the one or two times when it seems something was foreseen correctly, but there is no balanced way of discussing the reasons that literally dozens of predictions were made incorrectly and have been dropped as "old light."
But, as many Witnesses already know, there is something even deeper that is wrong with these claims of accuracy in discernment. The claims are inaccurate! It turns out that this was not really even predicted in advance. A close look at the original transcript of Knorr's talk actually solves the mystery of why he used the term United Nations in his speech. It's because he gave the speech AFTER official work on the United Nations had already begun.

I should add that it's very possible for the disciples in 33 CE to hear these words on their own without the context and understand them to say that wars, food shortages and earthquakes would be signs that the end would be nearly upon them. We can't be blamed for seeing them the way the Watchtower explains them, because the Watchtower has always relied on re-translations of the words in Matthew 24 which tend to remove the meaning in context. 
There is a good example of this mistranslation in the Matthew 24:8 above, where it supposedly says "All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress." The KJV is often followed as closely as possible by at least half of the modern English translations whenever the differences do not seem that important. So about half of the English translations are very similar to ours. But a little more than half, from a check of 40 translations, include a translation of the Greek particle "de" which the KJV and the NWT skips here. In other words we translate it as if it said:
πάντα ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων when it really says:
πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων Why is the word important? It changes the meaning from:
"All these things are a beginning of birth pains" to:
"But all these things are but a beginning of birth pains." In other words it emphasizes that something is missing or even wrong in the natural understanding of the previous statement about wars and earthquakes and famines. Here's why. All the Greek lexicons mention something like the following:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1161&t=KJV
δέ dé, deh; a primary particle (adversative or continuative) STRONGS NT 1161: δέ δέ (related to δή, as μέν to μήν, cf. Klotz ad Devar. ii. 2, p. 355), a particle adversative, distinctive, disjunctive 1. universally, by way of opposition and distinction; it is added to statements opposed to a preceding statement: ἐάν ὀφθαλμός κτλ. Matthew 6:23; ἐλεύσονται δέ ἡμέραι, Mark 2:20; it opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned It's true that it isn't ALWAYS translated, but when the context repeatedly refers to the possibility of a misunderstanding then it is an important part of the meaning and must be translated. (Matthew 24 repeatedly and explicitly mentions the possibility of misunderstanding or being misled.)
This is why, when we bring in the meaning of context with the original Greek meaning of the words (including: parousia, synteleia, de, etc) we would have a meaning that more likely fits the following scenario:
Disciples: Please, can you tell us when this destruction of Jerusalem's Temple will occur? Can you tell us the sign that we should look for when we know that the final end and your final manifestation is about to happen?  Jesus responds: Look out that nobody misleads you. Many people will come around, even on the basis of my name, saying they represent me, yet they will mislead many. [You could easily be misled by the fact that] there will be wars, earthquakes and famines. Don't be tempted to raise the alarm based on such things, because these kinds of things will keep taking place [as they always have]. All these things are but a beginning of the birth pains, [not the end of all things that you are asking about]. The reason Jesus said this becomes clear in the rest of the chapter when he mentions the suddenness and unexpectedness of the end. It can't be predicted. It's as if two persons were going about their business grinding at a mill, and one was taken and one wasn't. It's the way it happens with most pregnancies, when the mother-to-be can be going about her business, and suddenly and unexpectedly a pain comes upon her. It's the way it happens with a bolt of bright lightning that suddenly happens. It's the way it happened in Noah's day when people didn't really believe or expect it to happen and suddenly the flood sweeps them away. It's the same way it happened in the days of Lot and Sodom when, without warning, fire came from heaven and destroyed them.

Discuss the question from the title of the topic? Now that's a novel idea. ?
It is a reasonable solution to see the 10-horns and the wild beast as either representing, or some part of the dominant world power at the time of the great tribulation, the fall of Babylon the Great, Armageddon, etc. And it is a reasonable assumption to see the prostitute as false religion. And it seems that God puts a thought into the heart of the ten horns and the heart of the wild beast to give their kingdom to this wild beast until some end predetermined by the God's words will have been accomplished.
Obviously. But is it the same as "biting the hand that feeds us" to discuss whether our current explanation of this chapter is reasonable? Is our end-time-scenario too sacrosanct to question in any way. Or is perhaps now the best opportune time to consider where our loyalties will lie if things seem NOT to be working out as expected? Or is perhaps now the best opportune time to consider the meaning of Jesus words about not being able to work out the closeness of the time of the end if things DO INDEED seem to be working out as expected?
As several people already know, I come at this issue from the perspective that Jesus warned us against trying to look at signs of the times to divine the closeness of the end. It will come as a "thief in the night." Some of us will answer, but we won't be surprised, or in the dark, as someone who is awake and prepared for the thief. That's true, of course, but not because we will be able to figure out the time or season in which the thief will appear. Not because we will be watching for some entity to call out "peace and security." It's because we as Christians will be both patient and ready at all times because we are always looking out that our motivations are pure. Peter says we stay ready by watching ourselves and the type of person we ought to be, and clarifies the motivations behind all our activity in 2 Peter 1:5-8:
5 For this very reason, put forth all earnest effort+ to supply to your faith virtue,+ to your virtue knowledge,+ 6 to your knowledge self-control, to your self-control+ endurance, to your endurance godly devotion,+ 7 to your godly devotion brotherly affection, to your brotherly affection love.+ 8 For if these things exist in you and overflow, they will prevent you from being either inactive or unfruitful*+ regarding the accurate knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. There have always been those persons who think they are doing a favor to fellow Witnesses, or perhaps also highlighting their own faith in the predicted scenario by watching out for any mention of "peace and security" by a Pope, a world leader, or a UN representative. The initial post in this topic goes to a lot of trouble to try to read between the lines for items coming from the UN that somehow indicate that "they" could turn against and attack religion at any time. I think this is unhealthy and unchristian for several reasons. But I've already gone into detail about this aspect in other posts in the past.
This doesn't mean the scenario is impossible, only that Jesus said it was wrong to look for such scenarios as a way to anticipate the closeness of the end or to try to predict the timing his parousia. They might create some fervor and anticipation about the closeness of the end, but they will produce an unchristian motivation.
And, as I've also said, it would not be honest for me to discuss the question at hand without also mentioning that I think the whole scenario should be questioned. And, as I've also said, I think as Christians we are under an obligation to question such scenarios as to whether they are Biblical or even useful.

Yes, I actually agree with your point here. Here is what you explained in the post:
I agree with this. I was too anxious to jump off on a tangent to focus on a specific area of disagreement, so that I never even responded to what you were saying.
Jesus does indeed seem to imply a potentially longer period of time for the labor pains, and it does give the impression that there is even nothing wrong with saying that the "labor pains" he speaks of sound as if they can start even at the very beginning of a pregnancy. It's not what the word usually refers to of course.
In fact, you probably knew that the real source was the Watchtower magazine on jw.org, not just the Internet in general when I said above: 
The original-language word rendered “pangs of distress” refers to the intense pain experienced during childbirth. [Source: Internet] Our current doctrine puts the beginning of the labor pains at WWI, at the very beginning of the generation. Jesus implies this is possible. After all, who is to say that one of those wars or earthquakes would not occur in the year 34 CE just a year after Jesus gave the prophecy, at the very beginning of that generation? Some persons, perhaps even some apostles, were bound to be misled into thinking that a war or earthquake or some other event was a "sign" that the expected Parousia was imminent. This must be why Paul said in 2 Thess 2:1,2:
However, brothers, concerning the presence [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christa and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2  not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.  [Can't help but notice that Paul apparently equates the "Parousia" here with the "day of Jehovah." And this is not the only place.]
It's a very similar discussion of the Parousia from the end of 1 Thess 4 to the beginning of 1 Thess 5 which includes of course:
we the living who survive to the presence [Parousia] of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16  because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet . . .  Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2  For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 3  . . . just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape. 4  I come at this with the idea, of course, that both Paul and Jesus are dealing with the question of "When can we expect the Parousia?" and "Will there be any kind of sign, or advance warning?" Since I think that Jesus was referring more directly to the situation of the first generation of Jewish Christian disciples who would still be around Jerusalem, he knew that there would be wars and events and even teachers that might influence them to mistake the sign to get out of Jerusalem. There would be all kinds of ideas about how this or that teacher, or apostle, or another Messiah could mislead them by convincing arguments, or by saying to pay attention to this or that major earthquake, or major war. Paul was more addressing people around Greece, Macedonia and Thessalonika who would not be as much affected by the Romans trampling through Jerusalem. But the question was still the same, because it was still assumed that the same destruction of the Temple would be instantly followed by the end of all things, worldwide. 
To me of course, I think Jesus is saying that these things (wars, etc) are NOT related to the Parousia (the highly visible royal judgment event), but are things that people will easily mistake as signs of the impending judgment event. And another danger, of course, is that disciples might think it necessary to begin counting these as part of the Parousia and then wonder why the real Parousia is delayed, being thus disheartened and discouraged, as "expectation postponed is making the heart sick."
In the previous post I showed how Jesus theme was also the suddenness and unexpectedness of the end [Parousia/Synteleia]. It was primarily in this sense that I meant that Jesus and Paul were covering the same subject matter.
You say that Jesus uses the aspect of their heralding the start of a period or stage leading to an inevitable conclusion. This is true, but not necessarily so different from what Paul is talking about, although I agree that Paul focuses on the suddenness and unexpectedness (as a thief in the night). Jesus also mentions the unexpectedness and suddenness of course, but attaches the word pangs to events could occur earlier, long before the end.
[Hopefully, this covers enough of the separate questions you posted, too.]
I think there is still an important point to repeat for clarity, which is that while Jesus does indeed speak of the pangs even at the beginning instead of just at the end, Jesus does not attach these early pangs to the Parousia/Synteleia. He clearly divorces these early mistaken/misleading signs from any kind of useful sign that might answer their question about the end. I'm sure that's the specific point where we still disagree.

There are probably several appropriate applications we could find in the parable. I think the primary idea is found in the context of Matthew, especially:
(Matthew 19:27-30) 27 Then Peter said in reply: “Look! We have left all things and followed you; what, then, will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them: “Truly I say to you, in the re-creation, when the Son of man sits down on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit everlasting life. 30 “But many who are first will be last and the last first. That is what immediately preceded the parable in Matthew, and the following comes right after it...
(Matthew 20:16-28) 16 In this way, the last ones will be first, and the first ones last.” 17 While going up to Jerusalem, Jesus took the 12 disciples aside privately. . . 20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: “What do you want?” She replied to him: “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered: “You do not know what you are asking for. . . . to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 When the ten others heard about it, they became indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave. 28 Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.” So, I think the primary point is not about preaching, per se, although preaching is one of the valid ministries in response to learning about the Kingdom of the Heavens, so it's included. But the context shows that there are those who would begin thinking that they deserved a bigger and better reward for their ministries. They wanted titles. If it applied to the current preaching work it would be more related to the idea that a person who might give up more things (perhaps giving up 60 or 70 hours a month as opposed to one who gives up only a ten hours a month) might feel entitled to a title. Not that there is anything wrong with titles as goals or incentives on their own. It's a matter of feeling that reaching certain goals in the ministry makes one more deserving of a reward. Among humans, there is always a tendency to create a hierarchy of rewards and titles. In Christianity, there is only one basic reward, everlasting life. (Ironically, there are religions, including our own, that try to distinguish between "everlasting life" and "immortality," as a way to create a hierarchy of rewards.) Even that reward, however, is not the same as the way that humans think of giving rewards -- it's not for a certain amount of work, or a certain level of responsibility, or based on how much one has given up. There is no reward for serving and preaching and doing good things for others. In Christianity, there is only a "reward" for good motives. The road to eternal life is paved with good intentions, not good works. It's only the intentions (motives) that count. It's when Jehovah sees that our actions are motivated by love for God and love for neighbor.

It seems that I believe Russell was influenced by Adventists ex-Adventists and others, and you believe he wasn't. I don't think we can get much further in the discussion because you don't seem willing to accept your own dictionary definition. It turns this whole discussion into a semantic game for you instead of a search for the truth, in my opinion. The definition of "influence" that you yourself offered from a dictionary source, included concepts like:
The capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself. You included synonyms like:
"effect," "guidance," "direction" "have an impact on" "sway" and "put ideas into one's head." Every one of these items shows up in Russell's own discussions of what happened between himself and Wendell, Storrs and Barbour for instance. I grant you that Russell was very careful not to admit dependence on anyone else during almost all his recountings of his own early history.
Note this piece of the July 15, 1906 Watch Tower:
Among other theories, I stumbled upon Adventism. Seemingly by accident, one evening I dropped into a dusty, dingy hall, where I had heard religious services were held, to see if the handful who met there had anything more sensible to offer than the creeds of the great churches. There, for the first time, I heard something of the views of Second Adventists, the preacher being Mr. Jonas Wendell, long since deceased. Thus, I confess indebtedness to Adventists as well as to other denominations. Though his Scripture exposition was not entirely clear, and though it was very far from what we now rejoice in, it was sufficient, under God, to re-establish my wavering faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and to show that the records of the apostles and prophets are indissolubly linked. What I heard sent me to my Bible to study with more zeal and care than ever before, and I shall ever thank the Lord for that leading; for though Adventism helped me to no single truth, it did help me greatly in the unlearning of errors, and thus prepared me for the Truth." It's better, as you say, to read more of the relevant Bible Student literature, to see what Russell was saying especially during times that he wanted to distinguish himself as independent from Barbour, and again, especially after he began cultivating the idea that he was personally and individually the only person on earth who held the office of the "faithful and discreet slave." Russell's wording of his own history is itself influenced by his goals.
In "Separate Identity," p. 136, B. W. Schulz reads the information about Storrs to mean the that the Russells relied heavily on him:
The Russells and their associates relied heavily on Storrs: “The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs, who, both by word and pen, gave us much assistance; Schulz, as you know, speaks often of the various people who influenced Russell. It's obvious too that, just as Grew influenced Storrs (ex-Millerite Adventist), that Joseph Seiss influenced many Adventists. Seiss' influence on Russell is well documented by Russell himself. Paton was also a very influential Bible Student before he became friends with Russell and a contributor to the Watch Tower until 1881.
And then, of course, we have the Watchtower publications, which I'm sure you have seen:
The October 15, 2000 Watchtower, p.31, includes beliefs of Henry Grew and George Storrs, for example:
------begin quote from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000766#h=50  ------------
What Henry Grew Believed
JehovahÂ’s name has been reproached, and it needs to be sanctified. The Trinity, immortality of the soul, and hellfire are fraudulent doctrines. The Christian congregation must be separate from the world. Christians should have no part in wars of the nations. Christians are not under a Saturday or Sunday Sabbath law. Christians should not belong to secret societies, such as the Freemasons. There are to be no clergy and laity classes among Christians. Religious titles are from the antichrist. All congregations are to have a body of elders. Elders must be holy in all their conduct, above reproach. All Christians must preach the good news. There will be people living forever in Paradise on earth. Christian song should be praises to Jehovah and Christ. What George Storrs Believed
Jesus paid his life as the ransom price for mankind. The preaching of the good news has not yet been done (in 1871). Because of that, the end could not be near at that time (in 1871). There would have to be a future age in which the preaching would be done. There will be people who inherit everlasting life on earth. There is to be a resurrection of all who died in ignorance. Those accepting the ransom sacrifice of Christ will receive eternal life on earth. Those rejecting it will be destroyed. Immortality of the soul and hellfire are false doctrines that dishonor God. The Lord’s Evening Meal is an annual observance on Nisan 14. -------------end of quote from jw.org----------------
And, of course, the "Proclaimers" book, includes the following wording on page 45:
But did Russell and his spiritually-minded associates gain these truths from the Bible unaided by others? Influence of Others
Russell referred quite openly to the assistance in Bible study he had received from others. Not only did he acknowledge his indebtedness to Second Adventist Jonas Wendell but he also spoke with affection about two other individuals who had aided him in Bible study. . . . . One, George W. Stetson, was an earnest student of the Bible and pastor of the Advent Christian Church in Edinboro, Pennsylvania.     The other, George Storrs, . . .  Without a doubt, Storrs’ strong Bible-based views on the mortality of the soul as well as the atonement and restitution (restoration of what was lost due to Adamic sin; Acts 3:21) had a strong, positive influence on young Charles T. Russell.   Yet, another man who had a profound effect on Russell’s life also caused his loyalty to Scriptural truth to be put to the test. Have you written to the Watchtower Society to tell them they are wrong to use the word "influence" here?
 

It's not a deflection when I can provide evidence. It's deflection when you make an empty assertion without evidence. It shouldn't surprise you to see some of your typical methods and claims be challenged. I see no reason to let you get away with empty claims all the time. Most of the time, yes, I'm sure you can get away with it. Just because I've let hundreds of these bickering, sniping, divisive, contentious, snide remarks go unchallenged, it doesn't mean it should always be so.  Now and then you should expect false or empty claims to be exposed for what they are.
 True. That's exactly what I was complaining about. You are giving a meaningless meaning to the word "influence" because you don't like the idea that Russell could have been influenced by anything except "to fully understand scripture . . . by his own understanding." Although this would surely sound ridiculous to anyone who reads all of Russell's publications, that's how you put it: [emphasis mine]
Russell clearly admitted that he was influenced by others, especially in the area of Biblical Chronology. Are you saying he was lying? And because you claim an awareness of all he wrote, I'm sure I don't have to point out the references for you.
That is a completely illogical non sequitur, bordering on word salad.
Another non sequitur. What does it matter how great you might think the University of Cambridge is? You showed a couple of book covers. If you had looked inside you would have seen that one was irrelevant and one provided multiple ways to understand how Russell had been influenced by others.
Actually, you're the one who found the good definition. The dictionary definition. I'm not arrogant for accepting the dictionary definition. You're the one who doesn't utilize the very definition you provided.
Indeed.
Sounds arrogant. Just sayin'.
That sounds good. The only problem is that when you simply present the facts straightforward, you often pick facts that are irrelevant to the topic. What Russell thought of Miller for example and what he thought Miller did wrong, was lifted nearly verbatim from Barbour's words about Barbour's own "epiphany" of sorts when he figured out what Miller had done wrong with the starting dates. You really thought that Russell came up with this by "his own understanding of Bible Chronology"? And what would be the point of such a claim? You are saying that, on his own, Russell came up with exactly the same foolishness that Barbour came up with, which the Watchtower has now dropped completely as false doctrine. Russell claims that initially he didn't understand the chronology issues, he even expressed some disdain for them, and rejection of them. But after spending some time, especially with Barbour, he was convinced that he should join Barbour's campaign to announce the great events of 1878. He ended up accepting all of Barbour's false doctrines about 1874 and 1878 which were based on Barbour's starting dates for the 1260, 1290, 1335, etc. You are claiming that Russell came up with Barbour's exact same false doctrine with no influence from Barbour?
It's not possible to make such a claim without manipulating the meaning of the word "influence."
I have no need of a cheering section. This is why I don't create any alternate accounts. I think you have created about a dozen alternate accounts that you have utilized in order to provide a voting bloc that up-votes your own posts to cheer them on. And you have also used your alternate accounts to down-vote or laugh at posts with evidence you aren't able to respond to. So who's the one who apparently thinks you need a cheering section?
I'm not concerned here with some of the ways in which he was not influenced. We already covered the idea that many people think Russell was influenced in more ways than he actually was. I'm still stating the obvious, by Russell's own admissions, that there were ways in which he was influenced. Two of the topics that have come up here, for example, are teachings about the "Great Pyramid of Giza" and it's relationship to the chronology teachings Russell got from Barbour. Those are a couple of the more obvious examples, although there is evidence for a couple others, too.
I'm not going to worry about what other people are doing, unless they'd like to come to the forum and ask. I know who Barbara Anderson is, of course, but I haven't read what she says about "influence." (I notice that you also mentioned a Commodus in an earlier post. I have no idea who this is.) I am not here concerned about influences among and between Storrs, Grew, and competing religious ideologies or phrenology reports.
I noticed that what you quoted directly followed from Storr's phrenology report. Phrenology, of course, is based on the conclusions of an "expert" (usually a racist) who feels the bumps on your skull, especially around the brain area:
A Phrenological description of Mr. Storrs, given in 1849, may conclude this account of the author of the Six Sermons. It is as follows:  [And what followed was the report that you just quoted!]
Was Russell influenced by this debunked and false teaching about phrenology because Storrs evidently believed in it? Note this about Russell, based on Russell's visitation with His Majesty's Phrenologist, Professor Dall:
I have much pleasure in giving a sketch of the genial and fatherly head and physiognomy of Pastor Russell. He is just one of those men whose appearance, suavity, wit, goodness of heart and soundness of head do credit to his profession. Well up in years, he has a youthful, kindly, and sympathetic nature, fatherly and benign in counsel, moral and spiritual in his influence. In religion his "doxy" is broadened by the effulgent light of Bible study. His temperamental development is very even. If there is a predominance of either, it is found in the motive, which supports an intense energy of mind that cannot dream life away, but must be practical. I find the head of Pastor Russell to be a large one, and the brain gifted with an uncommon degree of activity. A full basilar region is accompanied by the powerful endowment of the moral, intellectual, and spiritual natures. ... Did Russell decide on his own that this false teaching about reading the bumps on one's head was worthwhile? Is it possible that others influenced Russell to believe that phrenology was useful?
 

I'll start with the conclusion of your post. I looked over the two books. Both books can easily be found in their entirety although possibly copyright-infringed, so I won't share the links. I have access to one of the complete books through a college library account. And both books are previewed in Google Books.
So, after looking them over, I don't make assumptions with your writing, that it is somehow in agreement with what I am saying. However, these books that look scholarly and have the word "influence" in the title are very much in agreement with what I am saying. And they are very much in disagreement with how you are evidently trying to twist the meaning of the word "influence." This shouldn't have surprised anyone. You've tried this dozens of time with me, and rarely have you ever responded to an argument with a book cover where the conent of the book actually supported your theories. (Even when you sometimes have pulled long quotes from the books, those quotes have often hurt your argument.) So I can see why you might be concerned with the exposure of "trickery." But the books don't matter. It turns out that just because they both had the word "influence" in the title, that neither book has much relationship to this context .
The dictionary definitions you supplied, on the other hand, are exactly in line with the correct usage of the word "influence." And yes, unfortunately, it completely demolishes your theory, because none of the definitions would allow you to avoid the obvious -- that Russell was "influenced" by Second Adventists. 
But you did go to a lot of trouble to respond, and I appreciate that, even though your claim suggests one thing and the only evidence you have provided indicates that your claim is wrong. This suggests that you might have had some other prejudicial reason to avoid the word "influence" with respect to Russell. I think that this might be the best place to start, then, in order to understand what you are trying to say. In other words, the new question, is as follows:
Why would anyone provide evidence that Russell was influenced by Second Adventists while at the same time claiming he was not influenced by Second Adventists? This is just a guess, but my theory is that you won't realize the cognitive dissonance due to the strength of your overriding belief that Russell was somehow too good to be influenced by ideas and people who turned out to be wrong. You evidently hold to an ideology that Russell was above influence by anything or anyone that could be wrong or false. And you do give several evidences from your own words that this is your belief. Just as no one would ever say that Jesus was "influenced" by any man or group of men, you also can't abide an ideology that Russell could have been influenced by Second Adventists.
Since this appeared to be the same reasoning behind previous attempts that you have made, you can probably see why I went to the trouble of discussing the dangers of creature worship, personality cults, false claims, and historical revisionism that invariably results from elevating the status of a man as if he were some kind of "prophetic figure." Note the implication of the references here on jw.org: [emphasis mine]  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014241
Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger” . . . . Can you name one of the other persons "in the decades before 1914" (i.e. prior to 1895) who would have to be included in that "prophetic figure"? Anyone?

LOL! What is a "Nebuchadnezzar IV member of the Watchtower"?
It's a good point that a lot of JWs and non-JWs alike just sort of assume that Russell was under the complete influence of Second Adventists, or they even assume that all of Russell's close associates were Second Adventists. I think several of the major influences on Russell came throught the writings of Joseph A Seiss, who was not a Second Adventist, nor were several of the other people who clearly influenced Russell. Russell himself had never been a Second Adventist either. He understood that there was a lot of shame among Second Adventists (especially because of the "great disappointment" of 1843 and 1844). Russell spoke about that shame. He did not want to be associated with it and sometimes spoke of his disdain of their chronology. Yet, in spite of his progress in some doctrinal areas that progressed beyond the doctrines of Second Adventists, he never totally gave up on their chronology.
Whenever there is a tendency to elevate a man for the purpose of elevating a religion or a body of men who claim to be his "legacy," there will likely be:
"creature worship," a personality cult, cover-ups, false claims by the contemporary followers, false claims and presumptuous behavior by the leader himself, and dishonest historical revisionism by later followers. To avoid this dangerous and unscriptural tendency, an honest assessment of the man himself should be promoted. To the extent that a man is elevated above what faithfulness and discretion would call for, it's a good thing when people tell the unvarnished truth about the man himself. This is no doubt why we know the unvarnished truth about the guilt of King David: a murderer, adulterer, and a man whose actions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of his own people. If someone knows that Russell was dishonest at times, or manipulative, or haughty, or egotistical or unfaithful, then this would normally not be important, since love covers a multitude of sins. But if he is being promoted as the primary fulfillment of a Bible prophecy such as the "angel to Laodicea" or "the messenger" of Malachi 3:1, then it becomes proper to consider the Bible's priority here:
(Romans 2:29-3:4) . . .That person’s praise comes from God, not from people. . . . 3 What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar. . . Rather than a smearing campaign, I would recommend a historical honesty campaign.
It's false, in my opinion, to take it that far. Russell was highly influenced by Adventism, just as he was also highly influenced by persons who were not Adventists. But there were more Adventists among his formative associates than non-Adventists. His own views adjusted somewhat over time, too, which creates a complexity here. Also, Russell wasn't completely honest about his own avoidance of Adventism. It was apparently wishful thinking on Russell's part that he would differentiate himself far enough from the shame of Second Adventism. It's also my opinion that even careful historians like, B. W. Schulz, have gone too far in positioning Russell's doctrinal eclecticism as far away from Adventism as possible. I think it's partly in order to hold a more unique contrary position that Schulz emphasizes the differences instead of the similarities.
Pre-1876, and post-1909, one could argue with some good evidence that Russell held more non-Adventist positions than Adventist ones. But he continued to give great importance to the teachings that were most influenced by Adventists, until his death. Also, from 1877 to nearly 1909 he was constantly working through (and sometimes out of) these Adventist influences.

ITS  NEARLY  THE  SAME  LINK -TEXT  LIKE  ABOVE  BY  MINE,  KURT
The original Hebrew name of God re-discovered in 1,000 Bible manuscripts,
January 25, 2018

( Nehemia Gordon )
On January 21, 2018, Bible Scholar Nehemia Gordon and his team of researchers discovered the 1,000th Hebrew Bible manuscript containing the original name of God in Hebrew with vowels.
For two hundred years, scholars have believed based on Greek sources and conjecture that the Hebrew name of God was originally pronounced “Yahweh.” In late 2016, Gordon found never-translated traditional Jewish sources that explicitly identified the vowels of God’s name in Hebrew as “Yehovah.” This is similar to the English Jehovah, but with a “Y” and the emphasis on the final syllable.
God’s name, known as the Tetragrammaton, is written in most Hebrew Bible manuscripts with one of its vowels missing, making it unreadable in accordance with an ancient Jewish ban on speaking the name. Despite this, Gordon had previously discovered five Bible manuscripts with a full set of Hebrew vowels proving the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was known to Jewish scribes as “Yehovah.”
The project to find new evidence corroborating this discovery, began in February 2017 and in less than one year Gordon found 1,000 more Hebrew Bible manuscripts with the full vowels “Yehovah.” These included the two earliest known Hebrew Bible manuscripts with vowels, Russian National Library, Evr. II B 100 from the year 894 AD and the Cairo Codex of the Prophets from 895 AD. Gordon and his team also found the vowels “Yehovah” in three manuscripts written with the lost “Babylonian Pointing,” discovered in the Cairo Genizah in 1896.
Gordon is the host of the “Hebrew Voices” podcast, which was downloaded 5.1 million times in 2017. He is also the author of the popular book Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence, which discusses the Jewish ban on speaking the “ineffable” name. Gordon holds a Masters Degree in Biblical Studies and a Bachelors Degree in Archaeology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has worked as a translator on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and as a researcher deciphering ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Gordon has written two popular books on the Hebrew origins of Christianity and is active in interfaith dialogue, speaking at synagogues and churches around the world.
For more information on this discovery see:
https://www.nehemiaswall.com/nehemia-gordon-name-god
Photo caption: The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) in the 10th century Damascus Crown with the recovered vowels of the Tetragrammaton.

https://religionnews.com/2018/01/25/the-original-hebrew-name-of-god-re-discovered-in-1000-bible-manuscripts/

By your words here you appear to misunderstand WHY you believe 607 is the year the wall was breached, and the temple burned, etc. You believe Zedekiah's 9th year was 609, and was the beginning of the siege, and that 607 was his 11th year. So then you question why the 70 years of domination would not run from 609 to 539. You seem to forget WHY you believe in 539. How did you get that 539 date? If you would ever look into it and admit WHY you personally concluded that it's a reasonable date, then you would immediately realize why 609 could NEVER be the 9th year of Zedekiah.
Any of us who admit that we think that Jerusalem could have been destroyed in 607 or that the preceding siege started in 609 are inadvertently admitting that we have never looked into the matter of why we accept 539. EVERYONE who knows why we accept 539 knows that it is dishonest to accept 607 and 609 for those particular events that came upon Jerusalem. This is how and why it is instantly possible to tell that someone who claims to have truly looked into the matter is being dishonest if they still insist that both 539 is correct and this view of 607 is correct. This is why someone who has claimed to study the issue for several decades and who touts their secular degrees and scholarship should be immediately called out for hypocrisy, sloppiness, or dishonesty. You can see on this very thread that those claiming to be scholars, but who have accepted 607 to 537, have learned to avoid evidence altogether. 
ON THE OTHER HAND. . .
I think that 609 to 539 is perfectly adequate as the secular timing of the 70 years of Babylon's domination, although I have no real use for the specific secular years. I think that 607 to 537 is also an adequate secular timing of the 70 years of Babylon's domination since the greatest effect upon Judea from Babylon was likely felt from about 606 to 538, which includes about 69 years. Now that I have looked into it carefully I see it would be dishonest for ME to attach the same events to those years as you attach to them, but of course, I can see your reasoning. You would claim, as most all Witnesses have claimed at some point, that this period of greatest desolation on Judea in particular could be Biblically dated from about the 18th year of Nebuhadnezzar to the accession year of Cyrus. It could be tempting to name this period as the same as the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination, and several commentators, especially in previous centuries did just that. In the same way, several commentators thought that the beginning of the 70 weeks of years (Daniel) must have started with Cyrus' decree, rather than in the years of Artaxerxes. Secular data got in the way and commentators had to adjust. It turned out not to be what had seemed like the simplest and most obvious interpretation.
But it can also be shown that we should have questioned this "most simple and obvious interpretation" even without the secular data, but just on Bible data alone.

I will happily admit that there is a small measure of Biblical evidence that there could have been 70 years between Nebuchadezzar's 18th and Cyrus' accession. (Which could also be known as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th and Cyrus' 1st, depending on your counting method.) That particular understanding of the evidence is called into question by additional Bible evidence, not just by secular evidence.
But this thread was more specifically about whether 607 is supported Biblically. And of course it isn't. No secular date is supported Biblically. We have to consider why we think (or why we ever thought) that 607 might be supported. Our reasoning is clear: it's because we accept that Cyrus conquered Babylon on a certain secular date, 539, and then we count back 70 years from that secular date and say that the fall of Jerusalem must have been the exact start of the time when the 70 years were given to Babylon.
It's easy to see what's wrong with that reasoning, and why 607 is not Biblically supported. It's because it requires us to accept the secular date 539. So then we need to consider why we accept the date 539. There is absolutely no Biblical support for it, because the Bible gives us no secular dates. If we were to admit why we accept 539 this would be a disaster for 607. We accept 539 only if we are accepting that it is part of the Neo-Babylonian/Persian timeline that has been built up and verified by tens of thousands of pieces of evidence. It's part of a block of time based especially on lines of evidence running from about 626 to 522. There is no 539 without accepting this block of evidence. It is simply not honest to claim that one particular date is better than others for any year of the reign of any king in this period. The Watch Tower publications imply that there must be an unknown or yet undiscovered king in this period, or that any of the kings of this period may have had a reign longer than what the evidence shows. In other words, the Watch Tower publications indicate that they doubt this same evidence, yet ask us to be certain about one particular date within the block of evidence they are uncertain about. This is dishonest. It's using two sets of scales, or "a cheating pair of scales."
(Proverbs 11:1,3) A cheating pair of scales is something detestable to Jehovah, but a complete stone-weight is a pleasure to him.. . . 3 The integrity of the upright ones is what leads them, but distortion by those dealing treacherously will despoil them.

I agree completely. There were several different periods of exile of varying lengths depending on which group of persons any particular person was exiled in. Apparently there were 4 that were significant enough to get a Biblical mention:
Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (Daniel 1) Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year (Jeremiah 52) Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (Jeremiah 52) Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year (Jeremiah 52) And there were several different periods of servitude during the 70 years of Babylon's hegemony, as you already mentioned.
So if it is also true that we can also speak of multiple desolations leading up to the most significant desolation I would think we should be able to agree that there is nothing in Jeremiah that ties a 70-year period to a single instance of those desolations. Just because there was a single desolation that might have been worse than all the others, or one that finally rid the land of the most significant final threshold of inhabitants, this doesn't mean that a 70-year clock starts counting at that event.
You have given additional evidence of this yourself, and I'm sure you are aware that there is plenty more in the book of Jeremiah that confirms that Jeremiah carried on a theme about 70 years of Babylonian domination that was poised to produce punishments all around and which would ultimately result in complete desolation of Judea as a country. Judea collapsed. Judea's capital city, religious center, independence, self-governance, peace and safety were so devastated that the people could not remain on the land in any sustainable fashion. This was punishment from Jehovah that they could have avoided.
The wording of Ezekiel 21 is another point of interest. Notice that you quoted several verses, even from Jeremiah 25 that shows that punishment is being brought upon Judea and the nations around them. With reference to the earliest of these punishments mentioned in Daniel, we should notice the time and specifics mentioned here. When a nation creates incursions that kidnap persons from Judea, this is part of the punishment, too. Ending up in a nation where you are liable to be thrown into a lion's den or a fiery furnace at the whim of some high officials should be seen as a terrifying consequence of Jehovah allowing Babylon to rise in power over the nations all around. Yet this obviously happened well before the "final punishment" to the kingdom of Judea itself, as you quoted from Ezekiel 21:25.
I am merely repeating the point that the 70 years of power that Jehovah gave to Babylon obviously resulted in a long process that ultimately resulted in complete devastation of the population of Judea. In this way the 70 years for Babylon were obviously very closely related to Judea's ultimate and final desolation. It makes perfect sense that the process of punishment, exile, and desolation could go on or a period of 70 years and that the "final punishment" could occur closer to the end of that time, not the beginning. At it happened, evidently, the "full and final punishment" reached its peak only about 20 to 25 years into the 70, leaving about 50 years or at least 45 of  those years for Judea to have reached that peak of punishment.

Yes. Jeremiah speaks of desolation upon Jerusalem, but nowhere does Jeremiah say anything about 70 years of desolation. He speaks of 70 years of Babylonian domination over the nations around Babylon. Babylon has been granted 70 years of "empire" or hegemony.  
The first point above was that it makes no sense to speak about a 70-year period of exile, because there were several periods of exile, some longer and some shorter. Historically, there was not a 70-year period between Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and Cyrus' accession year. But even if there had been, we learn from the Bible that a larger exile took place 11 years earlier, and another important exile took place 5 years later. If the Bible says there were exiles several years before and several years after Nebuchadnezzar's 18th, then it makes no sense to speak of a 70-year exile, anyway. Thus, the Bible never mentions a 70-year exile.
So, after skipping that point, you have now gone on to make the point that there would be 70 years of desolation. Again, Jeremiah says nothing about 70 years of desolation. But I would agree that there is a possible implication that can be made from the statements in Jeremiah 25:18, 29 that punishment and ruination would begin with Jerusalem and the cities of Judah.
This doesn't account for the fact that the punishment and ruination was an ongoing process. This would be a major reason that Babylon was given 70 years to continue making the nations serve them. Daniel 1 says, that for Judea and Jerusalem, it started as far back as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. This fits the Babylonian chronicles, which says that Nebuchadnezzar was taking booty back from the Judean area even before he had become king (605). Ultimately, the desolation would become nearly total as far as the independent power of Judea as a nation was concerned. (habitation, agriculture, economy, etc.)
We know that the desolation was a process rather than driven by a single specific event because Daniel uses the term "desolations" (plural) even where the NWT changes it to a singular term "desolation."
We also know from the description of 70 years of desolation upon Tyre for example, as mentioned above. If the 70 years were counted by "events" then how could Tyre have a full 70 years of desolation? Did it start at exactly the same time as the 70 years of a single desolation upon Jerusalem? This would imply that the idea of 'first' is one of primacy and importance, or that it "starts" with Judea, but continues getting worse and worse for them.

It's possible that what you really meant that it doesn't matter whether you render the one word as "for" or "at" because either one can be made to seem to support the meaning the Watchtower insists upon. But if you really meant to say what you said, then you are saying that both renderings, either "for Babylon" or "at Babylon" can have either meaning. In other words:
"for Babylon" can mean the same as "at Babylon" "at Babylon" can mean the same as "for Babylon" That's an interesting proposition, because it also admits that the meaning could also be as follows.
"When 70 years have expired for Babylon, I will turn my attention to you. . . and bring you back here to Jerusalem." Meaning, of course, when the time given for Babylon to rule the nations expires, then you'll know it's the time when I am going to keep my promise to you and allow you to come back home. "When 70 years have expired at Babylon, I will turn my attention to you. . . and bring you back here to Jerusalem." Meaning, of course, that when the 70 years of domination now centered at Babylon expires, then you'll know that it's time when I am going to keep my promise to you and allow you to come back home. This is a perfect match to what Jeremiah has said about the 70 years all along.
(Jeremiah 25:9-12) 9 I am sending for all the families of the north,” declares Jehovah, “sending for King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of horror and something to whistle at and a perpetual ruin. 10 I will put an end to the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing from them, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time. Notice that Jeremiah never says that inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea would be exiled for a 70 year period, or that any other particular nations would be exiled for a 70 year period. It's BABYLON that gets the 70 years of domination over other nations. It would be quite a trick if Babylon rises to domination and suddenly every nation all around begins serving Babylon at the same time for exactly 70 years. This is exactly what is perfectly stated about the meaning of Jeremiah 25 in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
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. And, of course, all of this has been said before, but I don't think you took an opportunity to respond to why the Watchtower publications were wrong on this point in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book.
Also, it was mentioned before, but it is clearly impossible to claim that it was the inhabitants of Judea or Jerusalem that had to be in exile for exactly 70 years. This was made perfectly clear by the passage in Jeremiah 52 that shows that exiles occurred, not just in Nebuchadnezzar's 18/19th year, but as Jeremiah 52 states:
(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. If it really started counting from Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, then not just some, but MOST of the exiles were taken 11 years earlier, and just about as many were taken 5 years later, as were taken in the 18th year. Obviously, the exiles taken 11 years earlier didn't get to leave 11 years earlier, before Babylon fell.  And, obviously, the exiles taken 5 years later didn't have to stay an extra 5 years after Babylon fell. So the 70 years never made sense as an exact time of exile for Judeans. This is why it was always about the start and end of Babylon's rise to power over the nations around them. 
Also, just because a preposition can have a lot of different meanings in a lexicon, does not mean it will have all those possible meanings in the specific context of the verse in question (Jer 29:10). We know that the scholarly understanding of Biblical Hebrew usage has become better, not worse, with the discovery of more Bible manuscripts. Therefore, before drawing the conclusion that either term means the same thing, we should be able to explain why the majority of translations up to the King James (plus the NWT) have used "at" and the majority of translations since the KJV have used "for." Can you explain why "for" is preferred in almost all modern translations? I'm not asking why you think the Watchtower doesn't use the majority view, or why the Watchtower disagrees with the majority view; I'm asking if you can explain why modern translations prefer "for." If you can't, then your claim at the beginning of your post is merely an assertion without evidence.

We can now quickly compare the variations of these dates among Millerites themselves, other Second Adventists, Seventh Day Adventists, and even non-Adventists (like Seiss).
Miller says he formulated his dates in 1818, and began preaching about them in the 1820's, shortly after John Aquila Brown had been publishing the dates shown above (Brown actually began publishing as early as 1810; see Froom, V3.)
William Miller  Based, for example, on his own words from 1845 here: http://centrowhite.org.br/files/ebooks/apl/all/Miller/William Miller's Apology and Defence, August 1.pdf
457 BC to 1843 AD (2300 days) 538 AD to 1798 AD, (1260 days) The years of Papal supremacy, as with Russell, etc. * 508 AD to 1798 AD, (1290 days) * [less explicit after the "Disappointment"] 508 AD to 1843 AD, (1335 days) 677 BC to 1843 (2520 days) - Starts with loss of independent kingdom under Manasseh Even after the "Great Disappointment" of 1843 (and re-tried in 1844), Miller still finds general support for large parts of his chronology in the prior respected works of Bush, Hinton, Jarvis, Morris and others. But in his 1845 "apology" he apparently already realizes what some later Second Adventists will pick up on, that it appears rather contrived to make either the 1260 and 1290 start on different dates just so that they can end on the same date, especially if the 1335 and 1290 start on the same date. In restating his beliefs in 1845, he explains everything else, but carefully avoids explicit mention of the start and end dates of the most contrived-looking pieces.
Seventh-Day Adventists, who derived from Millers closest supporters had already tied themselves to this original set of dates through writings, direct promotion of Miller, and even some personal visions and prophecies of their own that tied it all up to 1844. For them, all they had to do was re-explain 1844 as expecting the wrong thing, but at the right time. They re-explained that something prophetically important actually did happen in 1844, but invisible and in heaven. Therefore, one of the famous Seventh Day Adventist books, by Uriah Smith, 1897, that is still popular today, still promotes the old Miller dates:
457 BC to 1844 AD (2300 days) p.223,233 (no-zero-year explains 1844, otherwise 1843) 538 AD to 1798 AD, (1260 days) p.533 508 AD to 1798 AD, (1290 days) p.342 508 AD to 1844 AD, (1335 days) p.342 nothing applicable, (2520 days) p.785 In fact, on page 785, the author (Uriah Smith) makes it clear he has seen charts of the type that Barbour and Russell presented, and that these almost always include the "seven times." He says this about Leviticus 26, then Daniel 4:
Almost every scheme of the "Plan of the Ages,"** "Age-to-come," etc., makes use of a supposed prophetic period called the "Seven Times;" and the attempt is made to figure out a remarkable fulfilment by events in Jewish and Gentile history. All such speculators might as well spare their pains; for there is no such prophetic period in the Bible. But we need borrow no trouble on this score; for the expression "seven times" [Leviticus 26] does not denote a period of duration, but is simply an adverb expressing degree, and setting forth the severity of the judgments to be brought upon Israel. The expression in Dan.4:16 is not prophetic, for it is used in plain, literal narration. (See verse 25.) ** Russell's first volume was called "Plan of the Ages" before the name was changed to "Divine Plan of the Ages."
A big difference between Seventh Day Adventists and other chronology-laden groups like Second Adventists, Russellite-styled Bible Students, or Jehovah's Witnesses is that SDAs do not have any prophetic dates going past 1844. It's one of the reasons that the discussion of the history of all Adventist prophetic dates by L.E.Froom displays a seeming irritation that J A Brown, the first person to evidently point to 1843/4, didn't stop there but created a prophetic continuation of dates by allowing the 1260, 1290, and 1335 to all begin at the same time. Starting them all at the same time (when Papal power began to dominate as political power) forced his dates beyond 1844. Later SDA commentators, after Miller, apparently found it impossible to agree that a 2,520 year period would start with Manasseh to end in 1844, but starting any time after that would force a date beyond 1844.

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

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

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

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

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

You haven't explained why this 604 date is suddenly so important to you. The point about 604 has been made by secular archaeologists, myself, Ann, COJ, Jeffro and others for years, and suddenly you act like this is something you just found out. Have you not been reading anything written on the topic no matter how many times it was mentioned. Also, you now act like it's so important to count this 604 date (+ or - 1 or 2 yrs.) among the other two dates, which is something that people have been saying for nearly 200 years now. As you say, it shouldn't have surprised you at all.
You are playing that dishonest game again where you make a vague statement that doesn't exactly mean anything in English, so that someone might have to guess what you mean. I'm not playing your word-twisting games any more. You will have to explain what you mean by "the continued assumption," and the two ideologies, for example. Yours? Mine? Which differences in this revised WT chronology? How are these assumptions affecting the date of the final destruction of Jerusalem's wall and temple under Nebuchadnezzar?
Yes. Of course it matters. Why would you even have to ask?
So what is your point? That Nabokalassar in this list reminds you of Nabopallassar? The book you are quoting https://books.google.com/books?id=yJLccBK6cDoC is from 1867 before hardly any of the contemporary dated tablets and artifacts were translated and published. The chronology still seemed fluid to many people when they thought it was only based on Ptolemy. The author of this book, "The Sealed Book of Daniel Opened" didn't like 539 BCE as the end of the reign of Nabonidus (and Belshazzar) because he wished that the 70 weeks of years were easier to manage based on his own Bible interpretation. A common problem. The Watchtower tried to do similar things when the secular chronology got in the way of a private interpretation.
But don't forget that the Watchtower still likes 539 BCE. I like 539 BCE. Arauna and Ann O'maly both like 539. Even scholar_JW and AlanF both agree on 539. This author likes a date closer to 488 to replace 539. It's easy to guess why. Because he wants 69 weeks of years, or 483, years to reach closer to the time from the decree of Cyrus so that it' Cyrus who starts the 69 weeks of years, to reach to the Messiah who was born, he says, in 5 BCE. This has been a favorite project of "crank" Bible interpreters for years. Perhaps the Watchtower will go for it one day because it would also move the parousia from 1914 to about 1997 (+/-) or at least to 1964 depending on whether you need to reach Jesus' death or his birth. That's the kind of generation reset some WTS writers probably would have died for, because they could have avoided the flap over the overlapping generation. 
The author makes a lot of errors we would now consider to be stupid. You probably noticed some of them yourself.

What is the opposite of a scholar?

Thanks for providing this. In fact, this entire question, as worded, was what I was originally going to discuss with @Nana Fofana in response to this particular post of hers, so I'll go ahead and do that now:
@Nana Fofana,
First of all it should be obvious that this debate has gone on much longer than 41 years. Among Watchtower readers alone, it has gone on for over 100 years as you can see above. In the May 15, 1922 Watchtower, Rutherford was still dealing with the same issue about the 19 to 20 year "gap" in the Watchtower chronology that does not exist in the actual Biblical or secular evidence. Note this from page 147, which are the opening words in the article called "Chronology:"
"WE HAVE no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. Some claim to have found new light in connection with the period of "seventy years of desolation'' and Israel's captivity in Babylon, and are zealously seeking to make others believe that Brother Russell was in error." Of course, the article goes on to use as its primary proof that Russell (the one and only  faithful and discreet slave) had God's approval and therefore would not have been wrong about this chronology. Still, it does offer a few additional reasons why these dates are correct:
"SOUGHT TO DISCREDIT BIBLE . . . The worldly-wise have always disliked the Bible . . . The adversary [Satan] has always endeavored to deceive people. No doubt he has had much to do towards causing the confusion in the historical records of ancient history." [Always trying to put the argument into a polemic light, so that it appears that whoever is asking is some kind of "Devil" or antagonist to the truth, or an apostate. Some things never change.]  "Practically all agree that B. C. 536 was 'the first year of Cyrus'" [Not a true statement at the time, nor when Russell stated the same, nor is it true today.] "There is no contention about the first year of Cyrus being B. C. 536."  [This was also not a true statement, of course.] "The Bible locates the time definitely as 3522 A. M. ( 606 B. C.), the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Secular historians vary considerably." [This was also a false statement, of course.] "We find the Jews still under the yoke of Babylon, bringing the date down 12 years later, or to 442 B.C. This would make a period of 94 years after the return of borne in 536 B.C. If we add the 70 years to that we have a total of at least 164 years, 606 to 442 B.C. under the king of Babylon." [Obviously false about the king of Babylon and the dates, but it was a way of avoiding the possibility that the 70 years applied to the kingdom of Babylon, as stated in Jeremiah.] "UNRELIABLE SECULAR CHRONOLOGY How can this be harmonized with secular chronology, which states that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in 606 B.C., reigned 43 years, and died in 561 B.C.? We are not called upon to harmonize the Bible with secular chronology any more than we are expected to harmonize the gospel of the Bible with secular creeds." [Notice that Rutherford does not seem to notice that he is relying on secular chronology for his dates, too.] Recapitulating then, the Bible record is conclusive that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar synchronizes with the fourth year of king Jehoiakim, which was the year 3503 A. M. or 625 B. C. [Of course there is nothing "conclusive" here, only evidence that Rutherford wants to use a different secular date than the secular date supported by evidence.] And of course, the main point of the argument is really about Russell, even though it adds some new dates that Russell hadn't mentioned, but which were promoted as supposedly clear and obvious extensions of Russell's original chronology:
"STAMPED WITH GOD'S APPROVAL  It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? . . . it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914." With this in mind, notice how important it must have been to position any questioning of the chronology as angry and prideful Satan-like questioning against a humble and thoughtful Biblical position that had Jehovah's stamp of approval. This is merely a way to "tickle the ears" so that people think they are hearing a "pattern of healthful words." Note how antagonistic the questioner is meant to sound when in the question to Russell the question was characterized like this: "Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light and that you and all DAWN readers have been 'all wrong,' walking in darkness?"
But the actual arguments had been presented in the same scholarly works that Barbour and Russell had depended on, without any antagonism towards those who had used wrong evidence for their dates. There were many different ways of attaching a chronology to the Bible prophecies and Russell himself had admitted this in the past. Some Bible commentators had been discussing these types of discrepencies since the 1850's and 1860's. But it clearly served a purpose to try to present the questioner as antagonistic toward not just Russell, but all people who considered themselves to be seekers of truth and light.
Rutherford did the same thing as you can see in his article. Yet, ironically, the words turned out NOT to be true, even though it was Satan who was behind the questioning and Jehovah who had given his stamp of approval. In spite of this everything that had been said about 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925 - beyond any possibility of erasure - had to be "erased." This includes even what was being said about 1914 at this time. It turned out NOT to be the time of violence and chaos that had been predicted. It turned out NOT to be the time that resulted in the end of the Gentile domination over the Jewish nation as predicted. None of what was predicted for 1914 turned out to be true.