ComfortMyPeople

Yesterday my wife and I were eating at Golden Corral, and I tell you ... they have some pretty huge heifers vacuuming up the buffet, there.
One very "top-heavy" rotund black woman had a t-shirt on with some complicated logo, and underneath were three lines of text. 
I am struggling to decipher the logo, and read the text, which is stretched in an arc around her equator, and she sees me staring at her shirt, and gives me "the look", puts her hand-hocks on what would have been her hips, and shakes her head at me, like what would have been her neck was on a sliding pivot.
I turn away, and try to finish my dessert.
My wife thinks this is VERY FUNNY!
I never did figure out the text.

So what did the "Prophetic Times" of December 1870, published by Seiss, actually say?
It mentioned several dates because one of the points was that the 2520 years as a punishment for Israel could be thought of as having many different start dates, due to the fact that there are several important times mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles when Jehovah spoke of a time of special punishment relative to the kings of Israel or Judah. But of all these dates in the 1700's through the 1900's, the others were mentioned only an average of about 1.5 times each. But 1914 is mentioned SIX times in the article. The two columns in the first image represent 606 as the time when Nebuchadnezzar takes Daniel, in approximately his accession year, which was usually considered to be 605, not 606:

Notice that he is generally a year off from the commonly accepted secular dates:

The following are more copy-and-paste excerpts where 1914 was under discussions.


 

We already spoke of John Aquila Brown, and his dates in 584 AD, 622 AD, 1453 AD, 1844 AD, 1873 AD, 1917 AD. Five of the key time spans in Brown's chronology were:
457 BC to 1843 AD (2300 days) 584 AD to 1844 AD, (1260 days) 622 AD to 1873 AD, (1290 days) 622 AD to 1917 AD, (1335 days) 604 BC to 1917 AD, (2520 days) Brown promoted pieces of this particular chronology starting around 1810 to 1827, including 604-1917 in "Even-Tide" (1823). Of course, days were always turned into years, a longstanding practice with a Biblical precedent already stated for periods of 40 days and 390 days.
Charles Taze Russell. Starting in the 1870's and throughout his lifetime,  Russell promoted a similar set of dates. These were the same dates, of course, that N. H. Barbour promoted. Also note that several of these dates sometimes varied by about a year: 1799/1798 AD, 1914/1915 AD. These dates were promoted through the Watch Tower's wide distribution of Russell's books which continued until the early 1930's:
454 BC to 1846 AD (2300 days) - Russell is 3 years different from Brown 539 AD to 1799 AD, (1260 days) - 539 AD*, not a BC date; unrelated to Cyrus) 539 AD to 1829 AD, (1290 days) - Russell says 1829 was the prophesied start of "Millerites"** 539 AD to 1874 AD, (1335 days) - when Jesus returned; start of "parousia" 606 BC to 1914 AD, (2520 days) - Russell is 3 years different from Brown * 539 AD was considered the beginning of Roman Catholic papal rule. From "Thy Kingdom Come" [Millennial Dawn, Studies in the Scriptures], Vol 3, page 81, 82:
It proves that the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom in A.D. 539 was, as clearly indicated by the prophetic measure (1260 years), the exact point of time when this desolating and, in the sight of God, abominable system was "set up." . . . in the short space of fifty years from its small beginning, A.D. 539. We may therefore feel assured that the 1260 years, or three and a half times, of papal dominion, are well and clearly marked at both ends. ** From "Thy Kingdom Come" [Millennial Dawn, Studies in the Scriptures], Vol 3, page 86, 87:
But the "Miller movement" was more than this: it was the beginning of the right understanding of Daniel's visions, and at the right time to fit the prophecy. Mr. Miller's application of the three and a half times (1260 years) was practically the same as that we have just given, but he made the mistake of not starting the 1290 and 1335 periods at the same point. Had he done so he would have been right. On the contrary, he started them thirty years sooner--about 509 instead of 539, which ended the 1335 days in 1844, instead of 1874. It was, nevertheless, the beginning of the right understanding of the prophecy; for, after all, the 1260 period, which he saw correctly, was the key; and the preaching of this truth . . . 

If anyone is looking for good links (mostly Google Books) to the Joseph Seiss books I mentioned, the following is a link with about a dozen of his books on it. He wrote even more than those listed. He even contributed articles in the Watch Tower magazine, including two printed in 1905. His book "The Last Times" (1856) is quoted with the very first issue of the Watch Tower, July 1, 1879 (supplement) .
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Seiss%2C Joseph A. (Joseph Augustus)%2C 1823-1904
The book on Napolean is not included in the list because it wasn't written by Seiss, and only references works by Seiss: https://books.google.com/books?id=33Za05MXtpQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
I won't link to the racist book because it is merely a response to Seiss, (Seiss was not the racist.) But it does have some useful info about the monthly periodical "The Prophetic Times" attached below. I have also attached an ad from the Napolean book:

So I'll start with the paragraph in the "Proclaimers" book, highlighting a sentence I just looked into last night:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. The surrounding paragraphs will offer additional details we can get to later, and we've already discussed a small portion of this quote about John Aquila Brown elsewhere. In reading a book by Joseph Seiss last night, I thought this was the book that the paragraph intended. ("A Miracle in Stone") I realized it wasn't, when that book didn't mention 1914 (but the book still could have been hinting at it, or a date very close to it). So I went back and read portions of his "Lectures on the Apocalypse," and another very strange book that ties Astrology (Zodiac) to the Gospel.  I got closer, I thought, with "The Last Times" and "Parable of the Ten Virgins" but still no 1914. (The "Proclaimers" book didn't include the resource, just the hints.) Through Google searches with his name and "Philadelphia" I found a few more items. I wasted some time with a book called: "Luis Napoleon the Destined Monarch of the World and...the Battle of Armageddon" which I saved for quoting a couple points in this topic. Next, Google pointed me to a very racist book from the early 1870's on the status of the "Negro" by "Ariel." That book proved valuable, however, in pointing me to "The Prophetic Times." You can find it here: https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QafJbQ6pCmDNcBvzoMYqXTueLwyuFnEGGCrD6NdXl9F4iVgY1ECNIypPpMkQGVhioTyZqn_BiCKv3P_aGj2SvJyCCH2k_WrZob3PZMpiOr96QhjrIuWh-eBBfW53xAmWPXa1FWHEsemWxZEm9fd2S6ULix_ETXqIMVIv6uSAtfhKdTWxct7YHmpsP7LefUhQj8PK-y_CbsI4GRE32SWs5JPoaQyzXwC8nOgpvP6wr1CK9bgFMRA4YDtQep0FPBJBapGIozDM
The December 1870 issue had it. I'll discuss later.
In the meantime, I decided that it was actually Seiss who seems to have had the most influence on Russell from the perspective of all the multiple angles on the chronology doctrines.

Why another topic about 1914 and 607?
Because we could use a topic where we can all agree a little more easily. Seriously. In this topic, we don't need to worry about whether 607 is correct, or 1914 is correct. No one needs to say why it does or doesn't make sense to them. Let's just see if we can review the possible and probable sources that were influential, and ultimately resulted in 607 and 1914 being accepted as a Bible-based fulfillment of prophecy.
No one needs to jump from another thread about 607 and Biblical evidence over to this one. In fact, I just read a couple of books last night for the first time, and I had some questions that I couldn't find an answer to, and hoped that someone from that other thread, or anyone really, might have run across the resources that might have answered the questions. I'm reading one more book first, and don't think I'll finish it tonight, so consider this topic to be kind of a placeholder for a couple days.
So this is the purpose of the three current threads:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/5510-607-bce-is-it-biblically-supported/ a place to discuss mostly the Scriptural evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51655-607-bce-is-there-any-secular-support-for-the-watch-towers-view/ a place to discuss mostly the Secular evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. And this current one: a place to discuss the sources that were influential in the WTS accepting the 607 date as part of the 1914 doctrine. One place to start is with a couple sentences in the "Proclaimers" book (next post). I personally intend to avoid a certain book by COJ for this topic, to avoid unnecessary controversy, although anyone should feel free to use any resources from anywhere they wish, as long as it appears to be a statement of fact. Again, this is not about questioning the correctness of the doctrine.

The October 1904 Watchtower, page 296 [Reprints p.3437] included the following as a Question from a Reader. Note especially the first line of the answer:
THE TIME OF HARVEST.
AUTHOR of MILLENNIAL DAWN and Editor of
ZION'S WATCH TOWER:--
Dear Sir,--. . . Now if this, the common reckoning, be correct, it would make the Times of the Gentiles to begin nineteen years later than you estimate, namely, in B.C. 587, instead of B.C. 606;--and this in turn would make those times end nineteen years later than you have reckoned,--in October, A.D. 1933, instead of October, 1914. What do you say to this? . . .
* * *
We reply that there are too many ifs in the proposition, and that they are all abundantly contradicted by facts and Scripture, and are therefore not worthy the slightest consideration.
 

scholar JW pretendus wrote:
I and others have explained this to you ad nauseum: both dates had been advanced since the 19th century. In the 1940s Edwin Thiele did a major study in "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", and came down on the side of 586 for reasons he explained fairly clearly. Other scholars pointed out that he had missed a few things and came down on the side of 587. The discrepancy is entirely due to the Bible's ambiguity: did Nebuchadnezzar destroy Jerusalem in his 18th or 19th year?
And as I have repeatedly brought out, all descrepancies about 587/586 were resolved in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" by Rodger C. Young ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiImfT-_-rYAhVK62MKHbEuDYAQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcyoung.org%2Farticles%2Fjerusalem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04If9xNNWAyGO0tlNGmHv9 ).
But you know all this, and so your protestations and false dilemmas are deliberate lies.
Most importantly, the 587 date does not occur in a vacuum. As you well know, a host of contemporary Neo-Babylonian documents peg Nebuchadnezzar's accession year at 605 BCE, the capture of Jehoiachin and Jerusalem at 597, Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to 568, and the fall of Babylon to 539 BCE. These are all derived from the same global set of data. The secular data alone fixes these dates, and biblical data supports them. The Bible, of course, is the only source for the date of Jerusalem's fall. And since the Bible puts Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem in his 18th/19th year, and secular/biblical history puts his reign from 605 to 562 BCE, 607 is impossible, and either 587 or 586 must be correct.
Furthermore, as I have said several times before, biblical scholarship advances glacially slowly. Even though Rodger Young's paper is definitive, and he and others have published other papers confirming the 587 date (and set forth all the biblical evidence in support), it takes a long time in scholarly circles for the information to circulate and be evaluated and gradually accepted.
Here is a list of some modern scholarly sources that cite Rodger Young's work:
"The Reliability of Kings and Chronicles", Michael Gleghorn ( https://probe.org/the-reliability-of-kings-and-chronicles/?print=print ):
<< Thiele did not recognize that a problem he had with the texts of 2 Kings 18 is explained by a co-regency between Ahaz and Hezekiah.{17} His chronology also needed slight adjustments for the reign of Solomon and for the end of the kingdom period.{18} In our own studies we have followed the corrections to Thiele published in several articles by Rodger Young.{19} . . .
Young has also written extensively on why 587 BC, not Thiele’s 586 BC, is the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. See “When Did Jerusalem Fall?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 1 (2004): 21-38 >>
In a book review on "From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology", by Andrew E. Steinmann (
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/12/Book-Review-From-Abraham-to-Paul-A-Biblical-Chronology-Part-II.aspx ) the reviewer states:
<< Chapter 8 deals with the divided kingdom. The kingdom period ended with the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 B.C., a date that is in agreement with all Scriptural sources for the period and also with Babylonian records for the years preceding and following the capture. >>
An extensive webpage on modern views of Neo-Babylon chronology ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Last_kings_of_judah_synchronisms_20141118_-_PDF_version.pdf ) contains a fairly large table of dates (not reproducible here) and the following information about "Last kings of judah synchronisms":
<<<<
The 37th year of the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar has been unambiguously dated to 568/567 BC based on an ancient astronomical diary (VAT 4956)[1][2]. That, in turn, allowed precise dating of events described in other Babylonian documents of particular importance for Jewish history:
the last Egyptian intervention in Assyria[3]:20 in the summer of the 17th year of Nabopolassar was recorded on tablet BM 21901[4] and has been linked[5]:12-19[6]:416[7]:108[8]:180 to the biblical battle of Megiddo[9][10] and the death of Josiah[11] (usually dated to Sivan[5]:18[6]:418[7]:108[12] or early Tammuz[7]:108[8]:181 609 BC), the three-month reign of Jehoahaz (while Necho II was engaged in fighting for[13]:43[14][15]:184 Assyrians)[8]:181-182[3]:32 and the subsequent installment of Jehoiakim (placed either before[6]:419 or after[8]:181-182 Tishri 1, 609 BC);
the battle of Carchemish in the spring or summer of Nabopolassar's 21st year mentioned on tablet BM 21946[16] took place around Sivan[17]:25[18]:226 605 BC and was identified as the event spoken of in the book of Jeremiah 46:2[17]:24[18]:226[5]:20[19]:290 while the subsequent conquest of Syro-Palestine by Babylonians has been associated with the siege of Jerusalem described in Daniel 1:1[15]:190[13]:66-67[8]:182ff.[17]:26 which in turn enabled scholars to synchronize a number of events recorded only in the Hebrew Scriptures[20][21][22];
the above mentioned tablet BM 21946 speaks of a military campaign in Syro-Palestine during Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year[23], seizing the city of Yaahudu[17]:72 on Adar 2 (dated to March 15/16 - evening to evening -, 597 BC)[17]:33, capturing its king and appoining there a new ruler. This series of events has been unanimously associated with a story found in 2 Chronicles 36:10[17]:34[8]:190 which deals with a siege of Jerusalem by Babylonians (a few months after the death of Jehoiakim)[24], the ensuing deportation of Jehoiachin and the installment of Zedekiah sometime around Nisan 1[25];
the fact of Jehoiachin, his family and servants having been captives in Babylon in the 13th year of Nebuchadnezzar and onwards has been verified following the publication of the so called Jehoiachin's Rations Tablets[26]
the accession year of Amel-Marduk was dated to 562/561 BC on the basis of various documents the best known of which is the Uruk King List (tablet IM 65066)[27]; this information was in turn used to date king Jehoiachin's release from prison on April 3 (Adar 27), 561 BC[28].
No chronicles recording military activities of Nebuchadnezzar during 593 - 562 BC exist except for tablet BM 33041[29] dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar (568/567 BC) and containing description of his army invading Egypt, which has also been cited in the context of predictions found in Ezekiel 29:17-20[30][31][32]. Due to this scarcity of extrabiblical sources one of the most important dates in Jewish history relating to the destruction of Jerusalem[33][34] is a matter of debate with some scholars favouring 587 BC[35][36] while others opting for 586 BC[37][38]. Neither view seems to be a majority[39]:21 and the interpretation depends on a number of factors, especially:
assuming either the accession year system or the non-accession year system for the last kings of Judah;
counting regnal years of the last Jewish rulers from either Nisan 1 or Tishri 1;
chossing either Adar or Nisan 597 BC as the beginning of king Zedekiah's reign and Jehoiachin's exile[40].
An indepth analysis of the subject seems to favour the 587 BC solution at the same time showing that the last kings of Judah may have employed Tishri-based non-accession year system[39]:21-38.
. . .
[39] Young, Rodger C. (March 2004). "When Did Jerusalem Fall?". JETS 47 (1).
>>>>
And of course, you're well aware that the most modern scholarly references prefer 587 over 586. For example,
"The Cambridge Ancient History" (Second Edition, Volume III, Part 2, 1991) on page 234 says that Jerusalem fell "25 August 587" BCE, and a footnote says that other authors date the fall to 15 August 586 BCE.
A quick internet search using Google Scholar for "587 jerusalem" yields the following, among about 60,000 hits:
"Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 b.c.", Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Volume 114, 1982 - Issue 1
"The Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.",  R. E. Clements, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 30, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 421-436
"Guilt and Rites of Purification Related to the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.", Walter Harrelson, Numen, Vol. 15, Fasc. 3 (Nov., 1968), pp. 218-221
"The Archaeology of the East Slope of Jerusalem and the Terraces of the Kidron", Lawrence E. Stager, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Volume 41, Number 2 | Apr., 1982: "The Neo-Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 587 B.C."
"The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions",  Henry Cattan, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Spring, 1981), pp. 3-15: "... destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC, Jerusalem was then successively occupied by the Persians ..."
"The Bible and Western Culture", Sam Armato, Author House, 2014: "587 Jerusalem sacked, temple destroyed, Zedekiah taken prisoner, and Judah absorbed into the Babylonian empire."
And some web pages using Google and "587 jerusalem":
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC).html
<<In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 BC. . .
The Babylonian Chronicles, published in 1956, indicate that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time putting an end to the reign of Jehoaichin, on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BC.[11]
There has been some debate as to when the second siege of Jerusalem took place. There is no dispute that Jerusalem fell the second time in the summer month of Tammuz (Jeremiah 52:6), but William F. Albright dates the end of Zedekiah's reign and the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BC, but Edwin R. Thiele offers 586 BC.[12]
Thiele's reckoning is based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which was occasionally used for the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his zeroth year; his first full year would be 597/596 BC, and his eleventh year, the year that Jerusalem fell, would be 587/586 BC. Since Judah's regnal years were counted from Tishri in autumn, that would place the end of his reign and the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 586 BC.[12][13]
However, the Babylonian Chronicles support the enumeration of Zedekiah's reign on a non-accession basis. Zedekiah's first year, when he was installed by Nebuchadnezzar, was, therefore, in 598/597 BC according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar. The fall of Jerusalem, in his eleventh year, would then have been in the summer of 587 BC. The Babylonian Chronicles allow the fairly precise dating of the capture of Jehoiachin and the start of Zedekiah's reign, and it also provide the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's successor Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach) as 562/561 BC, the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity according to 2 Kings 25:27. The Babylonian records, related to Jehoiachin's reign, are consistent with the fall of the city in 587 BC and so are inconsistent with a 586 date. >>
http://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade18-1-05
"Jerusalem Fell in 587 Not 586 BC" -- By: C. Ermal Allen
http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/faculty/thomas/classes/rgst116b/JewishHistory.html
"The kingdom of Babylon conquered Judah in 587 BCE."
We also know that Josephus clearly dated the beginning of Temple reconstruction after the Return to Judah to Cyrus' 2nd year, and Ezra dates it to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE, and Josephus states, in Against Apion, Book I, Chapter 21:
<< Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. >>
Going back 50 years from 537, we get to 587 BCE.
Given the above information, there is no reason whatsoever not to accept 587 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
You continue to misrepresent the situation, which I have rectified with the above information.
No blame, just the facts. As shown below, the Bible most certainly contains an apparent ambiguity. But modern scholars have resolved it with real evidence, rather than pretending it does not exist. Again I refer the reader to Rodger Young's paper for an in-depth look.
Very simple: "WT scholars" ignore the many problems. And because the 1914 doctrine requires 607, that's what they've settled on.
The fact that the Bible itself is ambiguous on the date of Jerusalem's destruction is easily illustrated with two quotations from Jeremiah:
<< . . . in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard . . . came into Jerusalem. 13 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem. . . 15 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. >> -- Jer. 52:12-15
<< In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. >> -- Jer. 52:29
So which is it? Did Nebuchadnezzar take exiles in his 18th or 19th year?
This is the fundamental ambiguity the Bible presents regarding the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Bible commentators have wrestled with this for centuries. Only relatively recently have the many thorny problems been solved by proper scholars such as Rodger Young -- and "WT scholars" have ignored most of the problems.
     
As I said, biblical scholarship moves slowly. But as I showed above, more and more modern scholars are moving away from the 586 date and Thiele's handful of unresolved issues that led to his acceptance of 586, given that Young and others have resolved them.
     
 
Proof of my above statements:
The WTS knew that the 536 and 606 BCE dates were wrong for many years prior to 1943. The 1917 book The Finished Mystery listed 607 BCE as the start of the Gentile times. The March 13, 1935 Golden Age listed on page 369 both 537 BCE for the "Edict of Cyrus" and 607 BCE for the start of the Gentile Times. One of Russell's trusted lieutenants, P. S. L. Johnson, later wrote that in 1912 he approached Russell with the information that 606 was wrong, and 607 was the correct date, but Russell ignored it. In 1913, British Bible Student and confidant of Russell, Morton Edgar, published "Great Pyramid Passages", in which he also used 607 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The two books of Edgar and his brother John were widely read among Bible Students, and Russell and other "WT scholars" would surely have known of Edgar's contributions to WTS chronology.
Many scholars over the centuries accepted 536 BCE as Cyrus' first year, and it was accepted as such at least as far back as the 17th century. For example, the famous Bible chronology given by Bishop Ussher used that date. So did the chronologies given by the many commentators who engaged in prophetic speculation that Barbour and Russell so heavily relied upon, such as E. B. Elliott and Joseph Seiss. But Barbour and Russell gave no references in their 1877 book "Three Worlds" to any scholarly works that would support their claim about 536 BCE. They also claimed that Ptolemy's canon supported a date for Nebuchadnezzar's first year as being "nineteen years before the seventy years captivity of Jerusalem." Their book does support Nebuchadnezzar's accession year as being nineteen years before Jerusalem's destruction, but their chronology implies that Nebuchadnezzar's first year was in 625 BCE, whereas Ptolemy's canon implies 605 BCE for his accession year.
The table below shows three reference works that had put Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 605 or 606 BCE; other scholars of the time agree closely with these dates. Given the attention to detail Barbour and Russell showed elsewhere it seems almost impossible they could have missed this point. It seems they simply wanted to believe that their interpretation of the 70 years was correct, and they ignored, at least in print, all evidence against their interpretation. It is enlightening that they claimed Ptolemy's canon supports the 536 BCE date, but were silent about what the canon implies for the actual date of Nebuchadnezzar's first year. They were also silent about scholarly support of dates for the destruction of Jerusalem, which the table below shows scholars said occurred in 588 to 586 BCE, whereas Barbour and Russell claimed it occurred in 606 BCE.
An examination of some scholarly works available in the latter half of the 19th century proves Barbour and Russell's claim that their dates were firmly established was not true. Virtually every reference work used a slightly different set of dates for key events in the Neo-Babylonian period, but they generally differed by only one to three years. The following table shows three sets of dates for important events from this period, from reference works available in the period in which Barbour and Russell, and later Russell alone, wrote. These are: McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, 1871; Smith's Bible Dictionary, William Smith, 1864; Encyclopaedia Biblica, Cheyne and Black, 1899. Compare these with the currently accepted dates, which are also listed. See also Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Brown University Press, Providence, 1956, 1971.
    Event                              McClintock   Smith's Bible   Encyclopaedia    Current
                                             & Strong's     Dictionary         Biblica
Nebuchadnezzar's accession   606           605                605                      605
Jehoiachin's deportation           598           597                597                      597
Jerusalem's destruction            588           586                586                      587/6
Babylon's fall                               538           539                538                      539
Cyrus' 1st year                            538           538                538                      538
Return of Jewish exiles             536           536                538                      538/7
From the table it is clear that Barbour and Russell's key date of 536 BCE for Cyrus' first year was not universally accepted, since it is not listed in any of these references. They could have chosen any of the dates as a basis for their calculations, but only by choosing 536 BCE could they claim that six thousand years of human history ended in 1873, which Barbour had done as early as 1868.
This is yet another example where you use weasel words to convey a false impression. You mention "recent scholarship that began in 1942" as if that were new to the world of scholarship, whereas it was only "new" to Fred Franz -- and it was not even "new" to him, because the reality is that Franz merely began to take account of it in his writings in WTS literature in 1944, whereas it was actually known to "WT scholars" since 1912 and to secular scholars long before that.
In your previous post you wrote a grossly misleading statement:
<< and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago. >>
The fact is that they did not "establish" 607 as a precise date, but merely stated that it was a precise date
You imply that "WT scholars" came to recognize their 607 date only a bit after some new scholarship appeared in 1942. Yet in the above exposition I've proved that these "scholars" knew the "correct" date as early as 1912. And in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower an extensive series of articles was published that contained a chart showing that the correct information was known by "the chronologers of Christendom" at least as far back as 1907 (The Catholic Encyclopedia is referenced, showing Nabonidus' reign as 555-539 BCE).
Furthermore, your reference to "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations" is flawed. No such reference is listed anywhere in WTS publications, so far as I can see, but searching the Internet brings up an apparently equivalent study in "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization (SAOC)" in an article "Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45" by Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein ( https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/saoc/saoc-24-babylonian-chronology-626-bc-ad-45 ), who also in 1942 published their booklet by the same title, which has become the most accepted modern reference on Babylonian chronology. So far as I can see, the 1942 booklet is virtually identical to the 1942 SAOC article.
This material by Parker and Dubberstein also proves that correct dates for the Neo-Babylonian period were known long before 1942. The introduction on the above-linked page states:
<< Recent additions to our knowledge of intercalary months in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods have enabled us to improve upon the results of our predecessors in this field, though our great debt to F. X. Kugler and D. Sidersky for providing the background of our work is obvious. >>
Francis Xavier Kugler published his most significant work (in German, several volumes) in 1907-1924 in "Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel" (something like "Astronomy and Astro Services(?) in Babylon"). Kugler in turn based some of his work on the late-19th century writings of Strassmaier and other scholars.
Assuming that Jehovah was on top of things, surely he would have guided the eminent scholars in the Watch Tower organization to the correct information immediately upon it becoming available in the 19th century, rather than waiting until 1944.
The fact that no such guidance occurred proves that "WT scholars" are as disconnected from God as you are.
Not a bit. What troubles me is when supposed scholars lie in God's name, as I've shown that Mommy Watch Tower and you are so proficient at.
Yes.
Not in the way that Mommy Watch Tower claims. The population killers (earthquakes, famine, pestilence, war) that it claims have been operating on an unprecedentedly massive scale since 1914 are simply not here. The fact that we are experiencing an unprecedented population explosion is unassailable proof.
JWs continue to mistake what Mommy Watch Tower claims for what the Bible says.
Nonsense. See above.
AlanF

I'm sure that some persons might be fooled into thinking that your "evidence" below must have been some kind of brilliant response that showed your previous false claims about the Egibi Tablets must be true. But anyone who looks this up will see it was a complete evasion, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Egibi tablets. If anyone else had tried the trick you just pulled here, you would accuse them of dishonesty. What made you think no one would notice?
First of all your OCR is completely illegible. It's as if you copied a portion of a page from Google Books into a program like OneNote and then used the option to "Copy Text from Image." (Or something similar.) Those types of programs only recognize "Roman-style fonts" and tend to try to read everything in your local language setting, which is likely English.
Another thing you have done, AGAIN, is to avoid the title of the book even though you mention page 73. I have pointed out before, as have others, that you often include the title of a book if you think it lends weight to your argument. Sometimes, in fact, you only show the title of a book, sometimes just an image of the book cover, even when the entire contents of the book demolishes your argument.
In this case, the title would have given away the fact that you were playing another diversion game here:
"The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Rescensions" by Andrew G Shead. There is not a shred of evidence in this book that is related to the Egibi tablets. Just for fun, let's look at what Shead was actually saying. By the way, the book is excellent and covers a long known issue, which is this: Jeremiah is about 1/7th longer in the Masoretic Text (M, or MT) than it is in the LXX (G). Jerome, around 400, already had the longer "M" style text and the shorter "LXX" in front of him, and noticed this long before the "M" was finalized between 900 and 1100. Because most Bibles, including the NWT, are based on the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek LXX has usually been considered defective, or perhaps it came from a separate abridged version. Of course, it's not just shorter, it's in a different order, and there are times when the meaning is different. It was thought that the Qumram Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries would help, but not enough of Jeremiah was discovered to make a definitive case for the Masoretic Hebrew that we depend upon today. In fact, portions of Jeremiah that were discovered show a decided preference for the LXX even though the DSS were in Hebrew. Shead provides an "apologetic" for the MT (M) wherever he can, but he does a very fair job, I think, in showing that the Greek is likely more original than the Hebrew in many places, showing where even the Syriac version of Jeremiah depends on the LXX.   
Here is what your portion of the book actually shows, attached below, and I'll transliterate some of the Greek to make it clearer. Note that "basilei" means "king" and "to" means "the" but does not always require translation into English, much like "los manos" in Spanish, for example, can be translated as "hands" insted of a more stilted "the hands" in some contexts:
The complete title in B-S 106' Aeth (and Rahlfs) is [to basilei Nabouchodonosor basilei Babylonos].21 This looks to be a conflation of the only other attested variations of the name: [to basilei Nabouchodonosor] (Arab), and [to Nabouchodonosor basilei Babylonos] (rel.). Elsewhere in Jeremiah, Nebuchadrezzar is named in only three ways, whether in M or G: 'the king of Babylon'; 'Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon'; 'Nebuchadrezzar'. The title found in Arab is unique, though possible in theory, as it is used of Zedekiah (see §3.6.1). I therefore consider it possible that Arab attests the Old Greek, which has been universally harmonized, surviving in addition in the conflation of the B group. Nevertheless, I accept Ziegler's judgment here. [p.73] ------------------
So, it should be obvious that the only differences under discussion here are which manuscripts say: "king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon" or just "king Nebuchadnezzar" or "Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon" or just "Nebuchadnezzar" (without title) or just "king of Babylon" (without specifying Nebuchadnezzar). Notice that not even the "r" in Nebuchadrezzar is under discussion here. So this has nothing to do with the Egibi tablets or any Babylonian tablets at all.

....
 

I can't really see why you think originals carry more weight than revised editions. If you, Allen, were to write a book and then you discovered you had made some mistakes that needed to be revised, which of your books would you think carried more weight? Do you really think that scholars believe their mistakes carry more weight then the corrections? Does Furuli think everyone should give more weight to the first version of Volume II of his work on chronology, before he made the revisions to Volume II? Do you think that anyone in the Writing Dept at Bethel thinks that the commentary on Revelation or Ezekiel that was written in 1917 ("The Finished Mystery") carries more weight than our current writings on these books?
I know you very likely won't even answer these questions, without the typical evasion you've always utilized in the past, which tells me you know the real answer.
Also, you have seen me praise the Watchtower for the greater number of things that I appreciate and about which they must surely be correct. I will never criticize our publications for revisions, only for errors that contradict the Bible,  contradict facts, or make false or misleading claims. If we love the Bible, we should all be doing this. It's part of our obligation as Jehovah's Witnesses and as Christians to be humble and admit our faults. To make sure of all things, and hold fast to what is fine. To be noble-minded and "carefully examine" like the Beroeans. To try to be shining examples of honesty and truth. The test the inspired expressions. To make a defense of our hope to anyone who asks. To make our reasonableness known to all men.
As you already know, I don't criticize for revisions. Revisions are a good thing.

I remember pointing this out previously in a discussion of whether Sirhan Sirhan's father had a relationship with the Witnesses. (He didn't.) In the letter that the Watch Tower Society sent out to provide to newspapers who requested it, the letter made it clear that (in 1968) the governing body was the "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."
So notice that the Watchtower was consistent in this claim for many years. Even back 15 years earlier, in 1953, the same idea showed up here. Note that the Governing Body had 402 members. That was the number of [voting] members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

Any nitpickers for accuracy might have wondered why this article in 1990 (among others) claimed something different from the above.
*** w90 3/15 pp. 16-18 pars. 8-13 Cooperating With the Governing Body Today ***
Looking back in this “time of the end,” we are not surprised that the members of the Governing Body were at first closely identified with the editorial staff of the Watch Tower Society. . . . For years, the visible Governing Body came to be identified with the seven-member board of directors of this corporation established to publish the Bible study aids needed and used by the Lord’s people earth wide. The Society’s seven directors were faithful Christians. But their role in a legal corporation might have suggested that they owed their positions on the Governing Body to their being elected by legal members of the Watch Tower Society. Furthermore, by law such membership and its voting privileges were originally granted only to certain ones who made contributions to the Society. This arrangement needed to be changed. This was done at the annual meeting of the Pennsylvania corporation of the Watch Tower Society held on October 2, 1944. The statutes of the Society were amended so that membership would no longer be on a financial basis. Members would be chosen from among faithful servants of Jehovah, and these have come to include many serving full-time at the Society’s headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, and in its branches throughout the world. Reporting on this improvement, The Watchtower of November 1, 1944, stated: “Money, as represented in financial contributions, should have no determining voice, should in fact have nothing to do with the filling of the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses on earth. . . . The holy spirit, the active force which comes down from Jehovah God through Christ Jesus, is that which should determine and guide in the matter.” . . . Until 1971 those of the Governing Body were still identified with the seven members of the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. At the same time that the "governing body" was over 400 members --during those years from 1944 to 1972-- something termed a "central governing body" or sometimes "spiritual governing body" were terms that began to be associated with the decision makers in Brooklyn, New York.
 
 

The video in the last post is just over 3 minutes long, and doesn't get into any specifics about the archaeological evidence. For those who can't see the video, the image below presents the basic claims for the dates of the period in question. Persian rule actually goes on until about 330 BCE. Also note that the dates below include the actual first year that the king acceded to the throne (accession year) even if it was not his first, full year as king (regnal year). Also, the tablets and cuneiform inscriptions were picked to indicate variety, not necessarily their importance to the chronology of each king.
The basic idea of the video is the following, mostly taken straight out of the video:
The entire Neo-Babylonian  and Persian time periods are interlocked and intertwined.
30,000 dated tablets cover the Neo-Babylonian period.  Each is dated with the current king’s year, month & day.
Also, there are contemporary astronomical diaries, king lists, letters and royal inscriptions that perfectly interlock with these 30,000 dated tablets.
There is no difference in the evidence for each period: the The Neo-Babylonian and the Persian.
You canÂ’t accept one date and reject another. All the dates are from the same evidence:
539 is just as accurate as 626, 587, or 598.  If you accept one, you are accepting them all. So, 539, the start of Cyrus’ rule over Babylon, is no more or less accurate than:
•        626 for the start of Nabopolassar
•        587 for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple
•        537 for Cyrus’ 2nd full year over Babylon
Accepting 539 is the same as accepting that there were 50 years from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18th-19th year to CyrusÂ’ 2nd-3rd year.
Yet, a certain Bible interpretation [the "607 Theory"] requires that we, instead, count a 70-year period that must run from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18th-19th year to the 2nd-3rd year of Cyrus.
 

I just made a video that expresses my current general overview of the secular evidence. If it's not totally accurate, I can make appropriate changes to it.
Here it is...

Your browser does not support the HTML5 video tag.

A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it would be useful to discuss the methodology that the Watch Tower Society has historically used to treat this evidence.
I would hope that we can do this without so much side discussions of unrelated topics. To avoid another topic that goes on for 30+ pages where only half of them were on-topic, I would suggest that if we get enough off-topic posts, we merely move them to another more appropriate topic.
The link to the most recent topic on a similar subject is here:


 

It's not confusing at all that Jesus said only 1260. If you are saying that Jesus meant something else, just go ahead and clear up why Jesus would only mention 1,260 when he meant something else. This is what I said from the very start of bringing this up. That if we wish to contradict Jesus, we should at least be able to explain why.
This is how people "twist" the scriptures, by claiming that just because Jesus only mentioned 1260 in connection with the Gentile Times, that he meant to say something more than what was mentioned in Scripture. All one has to do is add something to the scroll that isn't there. But is this something you really want to do?
(Revelation 22:18, 19) 18 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll. Jesus spoke of the nations trampling the holy city, Jerusalem, for "appointed times." How long were those appointed times? Jesus connected 1,260 with these appointed times for the trampling of the nations. Jesus didn't mention another length of time. But your argument is that Jesus didn't say ONLY 1260, so that we should conceivably add another length, or lengths of time that we find in other prophecies. Is there some scripture you have in mind that gives you permission to change times and seasons like this? Should you add lengths of time you find in all other prophecies, or only the ones in Daniel?
Since Jesus said ONLY 1260, I suppose by your logic you could add, 1,260 + 1,290 + 1,335 + 2,300 + 2,520. Of course, you really only mean that we should subtract the 1,260 from what Jesus said and add just one of those time periods, to replace it with.
No matter how you wish to manipulate what Jesus said, it's still true that Jesus ONLY connected one time period to the Gentile Times. It would be false to claim otherwise.

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT:
(Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . . Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260,  that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with.
Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE.  I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.
 

The picture is misleading. It makes it look like Jesus thought of Charles Taze Russell as the "slave" or as part of the "slave" class.
Do people think of Russell as included in the faithful and discreet slave? Do people think that the items shown on the right, that issue of the "Bible Student's Monthly" or "Zion's Watch Tower" were produced by the "slave"?
According to the current teaching, Russell was NOT part of the 'faithful and discreet slave' and no issue of "Zion's Watch Tower" was produced or written by the "faithful and discreet slave."

If Jesus rejected the 2,520, then who am I to say Jesus was wrong? Note, as I said above, that I have no problem with accepting the WTS view of most doctrines, even if they are not based on evidence. The vast majority of doctrines are absolutely correct from a Biblical point of view. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt as respected teachers.
(1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. It is only where the evidence is contradictory that there would be any real reason to be concerned. In this case, I think we should at least have a good reason why Jesus himself said that the Gentile Times were 1,260, if we still wish to contradict him.
(Revelation 11:2, 3) . . .because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months.” I don't think anyone can doubt that Jesus is referring here to the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations [gentiles] for the appointed times [42 months; 1,260 days; 3 and 1/2 times]. Do you really doubt that this is a reference to the appointed times of the nations? Compare the red-highlighted words if you have any trouble with this question.
(Luke 21:24) . . . and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. I agree with the significance of Josiah's time and even the possible importance of his death in 609 to the prophecy about Babylon's 70 years of dominating rule over the other nations. Josiah has already been discussed in this context. But I have to say that I found this particular reference you just gave to be about the least valuable and least informed of all the books I have ever seen that reference Josiah and Jeremiah. BTW, do you think that dating Josiah's death to about 609 BCE is correct?

So it seems you would allow, potentially, that Babylon's 70-year domination of these nations around them could start when Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605 BCE. That's a pretty late start, and if you take it down to 537, then you are already including parts of 69 years.  605, 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597  . . . that's 9 different years, so on to 587 represents 19 different years, 577 represents 29 different years, etc., etc., until 537 represents 69 different years. We also have another potential year or so, based on how we read Daniel 1:1, which would represent 70 years.
And this is only referring to how Babylon affected Judea. Jeremiah doesn't say that the 70 years started only with Judea, did it?
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 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. The desolation that occurs upon the land of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) was not to be inflicted by Judea, but by the nations around Babylon, just as the servitude of the nations to Babylon was not dependent on when the punishment on Judea would begin or end.
(Jeremiah 25:14) 14 For many nations and great kings will make slaves of them,. . . And, as "Arauna" has already pointed out, this word "desolation" which is said here to come upon Babylon at the end of their 70 years does not necessarily refer to literal absence of all inhabitants, either. In fact, Babylon remained a metropolis into Christian times. But other nations dominated over them, just as they had once dominated over other nations, including Judea.
You think the Watchtower's view about Isaiah's prophecy is speculative? Do you think it's wrong? Do you think they were just trying to make things fit in those statements from "Isaiah's Prophecy"? It's curious that the Watchtower publications would perfectly agree with Carl Jonsson in this regard, but they did not change it in the online version, or the Watchtower Library CD, the way the "Insight" book has already been changed in several online articles. As far as I can tell, this is still the WT view, and I happen to agree with it -- not because Carl Jonsson agrees -- but because it fits the Bible's evidence. If you think you have a better explanation and this is only WT speculation, then please share your ideas.
Also, why do you think that proposing a correction to the current doctrine is the same as defaming the WT? Isn't it true that if you see someone taking a false step, the loving thing to do is to speak up. otherwise you are complicit in the error, right?

I checked back into the topic and noticed that no one singled anyone out until "scholar JW" came onto the topic to complain about Carl Jonsson. I can't tell what you mean when you say that "others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of . . .  intellectual perception." It seems to me they don't, but why would it matter? Remember, again, that no matter who anyone says they are or what they claim about themselves, that a discussion forum should be about evidence, and a Bible discussion usually gives additional weight to Bible evidence if there is a contradiction. (I don't see a contradiction, so I'm happy with the Bible evidence, and happy that it is corroborated by archaeological and historical evidence, too.)
That does not follow. I didn't concern myself with the particular section I posted in. I just found a similar topic and clicked on "create new topic." That way you don't have to got through the entire menu to post. I definitely was not attempting to single out one person, because I remember what made me think of starting this topic. 
I don't get this idea of singling out someone. (Nor do I know how it goes against all Jesus taught. Surely you are not saying that Jesus hated those whom he selected to speak with.) Surely not "scholar JW" as he wasn't involved in this back in April when I first posted this. As I recall, it was out of respect for something that "Arauna" had said, claiming basically the same thing she has repeated more recently: that those who argue against our chronology (like me) do so, not out of respect for the Bible itself, but out of a desire to embarrass the "slave" or to discredit 1914. I wanted to show that it's the Bible verses themselves that we need to respect on this topic. This is why the first page touches on several Bible passages that still have not been addressed by opposers of the ideas found in these scriptures.
Hardly, I have rejected dozens of ideas from those who reject the Watchtower chronology. I certainly do not accept all that Carl Jonsson has written, and I thought immediately that AlanF goes "beyond the things written" to try to pin down a specific 6-month period for the Jews to have returned and laid the temple foundations. (Although in reading more carefully I see that he was actually OK with a limited range of dates, too, but was explaining why he had a preference that came down on the side of 538 vs 537 for this event.) I freely admit that AlanF and Carl Jonsson and Ann O'maly clearly have much more knowledge of the ancient astronomy and artifacts that I do. I will learn and be corrected from any and all resources who offer better evidence than what I have seen, JWs, ex-JWs, non-JWs, experts. But I trust that the Bible is correct about these 70 years, even if we must admit that we don't really know every detail about the month it started and the month it ended. 
Also, where does it say that Jesus taught against defending those who reject Watchtower chronology? Jesus himself rejected Watchtower chronology well in advance of its appearance. In fact, he seemed to anticipate its appearance. Almost the entire 24th and 25th chapter of Matthew is a rejection of Watchtower chronology. We've covered this before and for here, it's off topic. But, out of respect for these important words of Jesus himself, I'd be happy to start another topic on whether Jesus anticipated Watchtower-style chronology and eschatology in Matthew 24.
I can if I'm honest. I have no problem with the 70 years running from 607 to 537, nor do I have a problem with them running from 608 to 538, or 609 to 539. I don't know for sure if they need to total exactly 70 years, but this is very likely, and the evidence we know about, including the Bible evidence, makes it very possible. I don't even reject the portions of our chronology that are stated without any evidence. The only portions of our chronology that I reject are those where the Bible evidence creates a very probable contradiction with the secular dates the WT has promoted. And for anyone who asks I always give permission that anyone can share my opinions; you don't even need to credit me. After all, I'm semi-anonymous, and anyone has a right to share the opinions of others. You could even write a book if you wanted based 100% on my opinions and I couldn't care less if you credit me or not. You could accept 25% of my opinions and mix them with 75% of your own. Why should I worry how and why opinions get shared on the Internet. I'm not trying to control anything. There is a much better chance of someone correcting my opinions if they are shared, than if I keep them to myself. Of course, I'd still have to say that Ad1914 has tried to do something very un-smart with my posts. Looks like they stopped re-posting when they finally noticed that they'd have to actually read through 1,800 long and repetitive posts to find things they'd be willing to use.
I agree that it's always best if one has solid proof for an objection. Sometimes however we find ourselves weighing one person's speculation against another person's speculation, and the goal is "best evidence" because "solid proof" does not exist. Best evidence sometimes shows up when we begin to remove conclusions that were based on contradictory evidence, logical fallacies, false premises, etc. Still, I'll look back through your posts (and you-know-who's posts) and see if I can see if there are any resources I can bring to bear that are relevant to your ideas and objections, which you might think have only been met with speculation. Don't know if my input can help much, though.
Now I see where you misunderstood me. Yes, we can be very confident that 607 BCE is NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, but this does not mean it can't be the start of the 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecy. That's because there is nothing in the book of Jeremiah that says that the 70 years must start with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. It makes more sense that it starts with his accession year at the very latest, and just as likely that it started under his father, Nabopolassar, when Babylon began a domination that replaced Egypt and Assyria.
It's not farfetched. At most I'd say it can't be more than 2 years off. That's pretty good for a date that more than 2,600 years in the past.
Not at all. 609 is not more than 2 years off, either, in my opinion.

Not so sure why you wanted to pick me out of the crowd. I think it was 605, immediately after his father died. He did manage to get back home probably faster than anyone had ever managed that trip before him.
 Both dates are secular chronology. But again, I have no problem with 607 being the start of the 70 years. I never have. I have always thought that it was close enough, within a year or two, and that even the term "70 years" need not have ever meant an exact number, to the very month, or even the very year. In fact, the expression was already previously in use by Isaiah:
(Isaiah 23:15) . . .seventy years, the same as the days of one king. . . Whether this meant "lifetime" as in "lifespan" of a king, or the span of the Babylonian period of greatest domination, as the "Isaiah's prophecy" book points out, it doesn't have to mean that the prophecy fails if that period of greatest domination was 67 to 69 years, instead of 70 exactly.
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
“These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What years would you @Foreigner or perhaps @scholar JW or @allensmith28 use to date that 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination as applied to Tyre? Would you start it with the fall of Jerusalem's Temple, or does it make more sense to start it with the earliest years when Babylon was tramping about in the region, beginning to prove its dominance as the next world power in the region?
Besides, you don't know just how long Nebuchadnezzar was the king's representative in Hattu. At what point did Babylon begin controlling Tyre's economy by taking control of key trade routes? (Isaiah 23) At what point did Babylon begin dominating economic and political decisions made in the Hattu region (Syria/Israel/Judah) simply through fear even before the first physical depredations of the land and people were made? I don't think we need to look for a specific event that begins the 70 years of domination, and no specific event that ends the domination. It's pretty easy to get the general time period. (And 2 Chron 36:21 seems to pinpoint the end.)  It certainly makes sense that the prediction of the imminent fall of Nineveh would have been the end of the Assyrian power in the eyes of Jerusalem/Judea. Did it wait until the final and actual fall? And you are right, there appears to be a couple of years when the Egyptian power seemed on par with Babylon's. Egypt was the king of the south at the same time that Babylon was the king of the north. Judeans would continue to choose between them for many years. But even Egypt and Assyria together couldn't stand up against Babylon at Carchemish, as proven in 605. Was Jehovah able to discern the dominance of Babylon even a couple years before 605, while Nebuchadnezzar was still a prince and general?
We could even ask if the devastation and desolation of a city needed to be literal in every respect. Or did prophecy often use poetic language, even poetic hyperbole, in making memorable warnings? Was it even necessary that Nineveh, Jerusalem, Tyre, or Babylon ever be completely desolated? Or was it a warning of what Jehovah was capable of doing as the true sovereign (king) of the world?  For example, In his pronouncement against Assyrian Nineveh, Nahum includes "fear" as part of what devastates and desolates her, yet we know that Nineveh was never totally depopulated:
(Nahum 2:8-11, NWT) 8 And Ninʹe·veh, from the days [that] she [has been], was like a pool of waters; but they are fleeing. “Stand still, YOU men! Stand still!” But there is no one turning back.
9 Plunder silver, YOU men; plunder gold; as there is no limit to the [things in] arrangement. There is a heavy amount of all sorts of desirable articles.
10 The city is empty, desolate, devastated!
Their hearts melt in fear, their knees buckle, their hips tremble; (NWT 2013)
All their faces are flushed. 11 Where is the lair of lions, and the cave that belongs to the maned young lions, where the lion walked and entered, where the lion’s cub was, and no one was making [them] tremble?
Just as we often must do with other prophecies, I sometimes put a softer edge on the chronology in prophecy (unless the prophecy itself tells us otherwise). Dates and numbers can be rounded, just as this has often been explained for other prophecies discussed in our publications.

Thanks for moving back to the topic. Those are bold assertions. I have not read James Penton on this topic, so I can't speak to it, but I have read COJ. Maybe not the whole book, but I've read about 100 pages and skimmed about 200 more. I had already noticed that the Watchtower's chronology is based on pseudo-archaeology, without COJ's help, but that wasn't the problem. I had taken an much bigger interest from the perspective of the Biblical evidence alone.
Also, I know that every time you have ever made a general claim that his treatise was "flawed" I notice that you never had any specific points that proved this.
Also, you should say what you mean by the fact that 607 B.C.E. is Biblically supported. In the first few posts of this topic, I explained what I meant by that question. You have suggested that 607 could be significant, but that you do not necessarily agree that the event in 607 is the same event that the Watchtower describes for that year. I think you give it pretty much the same significance however. 
I have mentioned before that I also think that 607 is very close (within two or three years) of a Biblically supported event, the start of the 70 years. This year must be very close to the start of the 70 years for Babylon's greatest domination, according to the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book, and which fits the prophecy of Jeremiah 25 (as also quoted in the same "Isaiah" book.) The only problem is the fact that the secular 607 date is closer to Nabopolassar's 19th year and not Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, which are about 20 years apart. Of course, you have already pointed this out, and have suggested that the similarity of the names and a potential confusion between the two names resulted in the Bible's use of the term Nebuchadnezzar when the Bible could have meant the same person we speak of as Nabopolassar. This is a theory that is based on a very thin and murky foundation. You have made use of errors found in 19th century works, errors in the pseudo-chronology of the book of Judith, and the possible confusion between the two names as your best evidence so far. There is also the "coincidence" of the 18th/19th year that you have brought up.
If I understand you correctly, you have also proposed a possible theory that the actual "destruction" of Jerusalem should be moved back another 11 or so years before the Jerusalem event that the Bible describes in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. I don't know if you have been as clear about this theory, or perhaps it was just me. It appeared that you were focusing on what secular historians date to about 598.

I obviously don't have any say in whether people are banned or not. I got a message from a moderator on two different occasions in the last two years asking whether I thought that you had gone too far with insulting and abusive speech and should be banned. My answer was always that you should NOT be banned, because the Internet is a rough and tumble world. Banning someone rarely does any good on the Internet anyway, as there are a million and one ways to get around it: make new accounts, map an account to a different IP address, use temporary email addresses that various services create to make this easy to accomplish, etc., etc. 
Any who venture into the world of Internet discussion forums must learn quickly that public statements will result in public ridicule even when those statements are right. It's up to mature people to distinguish right from wrong, even where someone's use of language might offend us. It's not always a pleasant experience for some, but as @scholar JW has indicated, he found this particular exchange enjoyable. It's an acquired taste. Expressive language, filthy imagery, even taboo words actually have their place in dialogue. I think it was pointed out that even the Bible does this, and the NWT 2013 Revised version explains in several of its footnotes that it has cleaned up some of this filthy or insulting imagery that appears in the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.