ComfortMyPeople

But you were wrong. Humility and sincerity require that we look at our mistakes and try not to repeat them.
And Babylonian dates are verified by Greek sources, Persian sources, tens of thousands of clay tablets, and also with Babylonian chronicles. The Babylonian sources are verified in the same way as Persian sources. The weaknesses in these sources affect the Persian rulers in the same way as they affect the Neo-Babylonian rulers. The strengths in these sources do the same.
This is only one of the ways in which Persian dates have been counted. Olympiads is also one of the ways in which we can "reliably" learn that the date for Jerusalem's fall is not the date that the Watchtower has promoted. The Olympiad dating is further evidence to confirm the interlocking dates of the entire period.
The organization uses the Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries and king's lists. The organization relies upon copies of copies of secular sources in order to use secular dates like 539 and 537.
Quote this The Watchtower Society relies upon astronomical calculations to get the secular dates that the organization promotes. The problem with the description of eclipses is not related to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period.
It's usually true that humility and sincerity are necessary to avoid repeating the same mistakes. If one of the mistakes that is commonly made is to brag about having correctly predicted something decades in advance, but anyone can look up and see that what was predicted decades in advance was something else entirely, then we should look at the motive. I am sure that the "straw man" idea of an organization that "spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the 'mistake of 1914'" is ridiculous. I would guess that as little time as possible is spent thinking about the mistake of 1914. But if we find dishonesty in 100% of the instances where the topic did come up, we have a right to be suspicious of the motives for bringing it up. Just as you and I have a right to be suspicious of the motives of ex-JWs and apostates who bring up the subject when and if they make false claims about it.
I agree that this could be the crux of the problem. I think it should bother us when we see the 607 theory and the 1914 theory produce contradictions in our literature, purposeful mistranslations of the Hebrew and Greek in our own Bibles, and a string of interpretations of related doctrines that rely on the least likely meanings of the Bible text.
Hopefully, we will stop using these Babylonian dates in our literature. Our repeated rehash of these Babylonian dates implies that the Bible is not sufficient, not enough for us to be fully equipped for every good work. The more one looks into the evidence it appears that it is based on a presumptuous and unscriptural agenda. Not of everything, of course, but just a portion of our teachings, that most of us probably no longer consider "core teachings," anyway. We should be humble enough to look at the Bible and the secular evidence we have imposed upon it with an open mind.
I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?

VAT4956 illustrates exactly what direction one needs to go to get to exactly the 18th and to get to exactly to the 19th year. That's the thing about an astronomical diary that tells you what year aligns to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. From there you know what direction you need to go to reach the 18th and 19th years or any other prior year in his reign. And it does this from the front side. It does this from the back side. And it does this from both sides.
If you go back to the post you made here on Saturday, 12/23, the one with the Map of the Ancient Near East, you can see that you went from a mistaken or unproven premise and then said that this [false premise] was why VAT4956 tells us nothing about the 18-19 years, and that VAT4956 can only be used to show what his first (accession) year was. As you said:
While it's true that knowing his 37th year was 568 will also tell you that his accession year was 605, it ALSO tells you that:
his first year was 604 and his 18th year was 587 and his 19th year was 586 and his 36th year was 569 and his 35th year was 570. It pinpoints which year matches every regnal year from 605 to 568. Claiming otherwise is a math mistake just as false as claiming that 4+1=6, or worse, really. It is the same as saying: If 568+37 = 605, then 568+36=0 [nothing] and 568+1=0[nothing] and 568+19=0[nothing]. You made an incorrect conjecture, rather than basing what you said on scholarly findings or scripture or simple math.
This is "word salad" with non-sequiturious dressing. 
We can if it will help. But for nearly half its existence the Watchtower, along with educated people like Fred Franz, believed and promoted a "Bible" chronology that we now admit is false. Franz, Russell, Rutherford all had plenty of Bible understanding, yet two of them taught a Bible chronology until they died, that the Watchtower now considers to be false. They used the term "absolute" and "God's dates, not ours" incorrectly. An archaeologist can correctly make use of the term "absolute" even if they are talking about a style of canoe made in New Guinea. They need absolutely no Bible understanding to use the term with its correct scholarly meaning.
Quite the opposite of justifying how contradictory it would be. You are veering off into bad math again. VAT4956 tells you to start . . .
his 17th year in 588, his 18th year in 587 his 19th year in 586 his 20th year in 585 his 27th year in 578 his 37th year in 568 If you really can't see where it does "indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587 BC specifically," then you shouldn't be  talking about contradictory evidence or what VAT4956 does and does not indicate. Secular chronology does not place the 18th and 19th year where it "wishes."
More word salad.
This is irrelevant to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Would you say that the Watchtower publications are biased because they look at the books of Kings and Chronicles with errors? Note, how the Insight book inserts the bracketed words "actually, the fifteenth" instead of "the thirty-fifth" year of Asa. If you read "Insight" you will see that it suggests that the Bible contains scribal errors in several other books, too.
*** it-1 p. 184 Asa ***
So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,” It is not necessary to read the rest of this post, but it covers not even half of the potential scribal errors that the Watchtower publications have made reference to in the attempt to correct errors in the Bible text. I'm sure you are aware that there is even a chronology "glitch" in the book of Daniel that the Watchtower publications have discussed at length so that the meaning we give this verse is quite different from the actual statements in Daniel.
*** it-1 p. 412 Capital ***
(1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings 25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits” with “five cubits.” *** it-1 p. 570 Daleth ***
The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is considerable similarity between the letters daʹleth [ד] and rehsh [ר], allowing for possible scribal errors in copying. This may account for various differences in spelling, such as that of the “Rodanim” at 1 Chronicles 1:7 and the “Dodanim” at Genesis 10:4. *** it-1 p. 619 Deuel ***
In the Masoretic text and the Syriac Peshitta, he is called “Reuel” at Numbers 2:14. This may be due to a scribal error, since the Hebrew letters for “D” and “R” are very similar and the name “Deuel” does, in fact, appear at Numbers 2:14 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, and over a hundred Hebrew manuscripts. *** it-1 pp. 626-627 Dimon ***
. . . Dibon did not stand by any large “waters,” it being a considerable distance from the nearest wadi, the Arnon. They suggest, therefore, that Dimon may be a scribal alteration of Madmen, mentioned in Jeremiah’s condemnation of Moab (Jer 48:2), and usually identified with Dimna, about 4 km (2.5 mi) WNW of Rabbath-Moab, on a height dominating the waters of the ʽAin el-Megheisil to the SE.  Both views are conjectural, the latter having in its favor identification with a site associated with waters, which the context seems to require. *** it-1 p. 706 Elhanan ***
In 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan is identified as “the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite,” and it is said that he struck down Goliath. However, many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error. *** it-1 p. 718 Elishama ***
This Elishama is listed as Elishua in 2 Samuel 5:15, in 1 Chronicles 14:5, and in two Hebrew manuscripts at 1 Chronicles 3:6. Elishua is generally considered to be the correct name, as the name Elishama appears again in 1 Chronicles 3:8 and therefore could easily have crept into verse 6 through a scribal error. *** it-1 p. 929 Gibeah ***
The Hebrew spellings of Geba (masculine form of the word meaning “Hill”) and Gibeah (feminine form of the term meaning “Hill”) are almost identical. Many believe that this has resulted in scribal errors in the Masoretic text and therefore recommend changing certain scriptures to read “Geba” instead of “Gibeah,” and vice versa. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
This could account for their being called “horsemen” at 2 Samuel 10:18 and “men on foot” at 1 Chronicles 19:18. The difference in the number of Syrian charioteers killed in battle is usually attributed to scribal error, the lower figure of 700 charioteers being considered the correct one. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
The variation in the enumeration of these at 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 may have arisen through scribal error. In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps preserves the original reading. *** it-1 p. 1145 Horse ***
However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.) *** it-1 p. 1166 Ibleam ***
. . . (Jos 21:25) reads “Gath-rimmon” instead of “Bileam” or “Ibleam.” Generally this is attributed to scribal error, “Gath-rimmon,” the name of a city in Dan, probably having been inadvertently repeated from verse 24. *** it-1 p. 1239 Jaare-oregim ***
A name appearing only at 2 Samuel 21:19. It is generally believed that scribal error has given rise to this name and that the correct reading is preserved in the parallel text at 1 Chronicles 20:5. “Jaare” is considered to be an alteration of “Jair,” and “oregim” (ʼo·reghimʹ, “weavers” or “loom workers”) is thought to have been copied inadvertently from a line below in the same verse. *** it-2 p. 87 Johanan ***
Grandson of Eliashib, the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His being called Jonathan in Nehemiah 12:11 is probably due to a scribal error, as the names “Johanan” and “Jonathan” are very similar in Hebrew. *** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth ***
There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four. *** it-2 p. 177 Kite ***
The Deuteronomy list contains ra·ʼahʹ in place of da·ʼahʹ, as in Leviticus, but this is considered to be probably due to a scribal substitution of the Hebrew equivalent of “r” (ר) for “d” (ד), the letters being very similar in appearance. And then there are more complicated errors to deal with when the text that is preferred for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is based on the Masoretic text which makes changes from phrases like "Jehovah cursed" to "Jehovah blessed," and even makes changes like the following one:
*** it-2 p. 307 Manasseh ***
. A name appearing in the Masoretic text at Judges 18:30, because of scribal modification. The account concerns Danite apostasy, and the New World Translation says that “Jonathan the son of Gershom, Moses’ son, he and his sons became priests to the tribe of the Danites.” (See also AT; Mo; Ro; RS.) Jewish scribes inserted a suspended letter (nun = n) between the first two letters in the original Hebrew name so as to give the reading “Manasseh’s” instead of “Moses’,” doing so out of regard for Moses. The scribes thus sought to hide the reproach or disgrace that might be brought upon the name of Moses because of Jonathan’s action. In addition to the altered Masoretic text, “Manasseh’s” appears in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the Greek Septuagint and in the Syriac Peshitta. However, “Moses’” is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate at Judges 18:30. *** it-2 p. 349 Mash ***
At 1 Chronicles 1:17 the Masoretic text reads “Meshech” instead of “Mash.” But this is probably a scribal error since Meshech is listed as a “son” of Japheth.—Ge 10:2; 1Ch 1:5. *** it-2 p. 396 Michmas(h) ***
According to 1 Samuel 13:5, the Philistine forces at Michmash included 30,000 war chariots. This number is far greater than that involved in several other military expeditions (compare Jg 4:13; 2Ch 12:2, 3; 14:9), and it is hard to imagine how so many war chariots could have been used in mountainous terrain. For this reason 30,000 is generally viewed as a scribal error. The Syriac Peshitta and the Lagardian edition of the Greek Septuagint read 3,000, and numerous Bible translations follow this rendering. (AT, JB, Mo) However, even lower figures have been suggested. *** it-2 p. 398 Mijamin ***
He may have founded the paternal house of Miniamin mentioned at Nehemiah 12:17 (where the name of the head of that house appears to have been an inadvertent scribal omission in the Hebrew text).  
*** it-2 p. 938 Shuppim ***
Since the last three characters of his name in Hebrew (Shup·pimʹ) are identical to the last three characters of the previous term (behth ha·ʼasup·pimʹ), scholars suspect that it is a dittograph (an unintentional scribal repetition), therefore, in this verse, not the name of a person.—Compare 1Ch 26:10, 11. *** it-2 p. 1112 Tob-adonijah ***
(2Ch 17:7-9) Reference to Adonijah and Tobijah in the same verse leads some scholars to believe this name is a scribal dittograph, that is, an inadvertent repetition. And of course there are other issues with the variations in manuscripts. The NWT shows "18 years" for both of the following, but several major texts actually show 8 years in 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 18 in 2 Kings 24:8.
(2 Kings 24:8) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . . (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 8 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months and ten days in Jerusalem. So the Watchtower publications speak very appreciatively of the critical textual studies by scholars that have helped to identify some of these scribal errors and correct them.
*** it-2 p. 313 Manuscripts of the Bible ***
Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Where possible, the Watchtower publications seek to avoid admitting scribal errors even if we have no better explanation currently:
*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
However, there are differences in the numbers given for each family or house, and the individual figures in both listings yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these variations to scribal errors. While this aspect cannot be completely ignored, there are other possible explanations for the differences. It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources. -----------NOTE------------
For anyone just scanning quickly across this  post and wondering why there is so much about scribal errors here, it's because I'm responding to Foreigner's assertion that if one looks at Scripture as if it might have error in it, then their scholarship cannot be trusted. Yet, there are literally more than a thousand places where the Watchtower believes that errors have crept into the Biblical texts that are relied upon to translate the NWT or any other Bible translation. This is one of the reasons the persons who have worked on scholarly Bible dictionaries and Bible translation itself have expressed appreciation for scholars who have looked into errors and potential errors. The assertion is therefore not true that just because a scholar might look into potential errors that this makes their scholarship automatically unstrustworthy.
 

Fine, but I was making a "coin" more analogous to VAT4956 which has the date on both sides.
"This" is why? I think you should mean the opposite. It's because VAT4956 is not analogous to your undated coin, that VAT4956 holds a very high value in pinpointing an absolute date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year AND Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. And furthermore we have no real question about the actual date that VAT4956 pinpoints for his 29th year, his 5th year, his 35th year, his 37th year, his 8th year, his 1st year, his accession year, etc., because every Babylonian text is dated consistently.
Since VAT4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568 then it is pinpointing his accession year to be 568+37=605. It is therefore pinpointing his first year to be 604. It is pinpointing all these years:
Acc  = 605 1st  = 604 2nd = 603 3rd = 602 4th = 601 5th = 600 6th = 599 7th = 598 8th = 597 9th = 596 10th = 595 11th = 594 12th = 593 13th = 592 14th = 591 15th = 590 16th = 589 17th =  588 18th = 587 19th = 586 20th = 585  . . . 27th = 578  . . . 37th = 568 So VAT4956 pinpoints every year of Nebuchadnezzar from his accession to his 37th year.
Yes. It does discredit 607, because it means that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king in 607. It also means that his 18th year was 587. So it's a matter of whether you believe the Bible when it speaks of the events that took place in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. How could Nebuchadnezzar be in his 18th year two years before he started reigning?
You can't use the expression "This is why" after stating a false or unproven premise. You create a "non sequitur." It's like if you had said you found a documentary showing that World War 2 started in Europe in 1939  while Roosevelt (FDR) was in his second term as U.S. President. And from that documentary, you decide you can make an unproven or false premise that therefore WW2 might have started when Hitler invaded Poland in 1929 which was during Herbert Hoover's presidency. For evidence of this false premise, you claim that it's all a matter of scholarly opinion. In fact, historical evidence is not always a matter of scholarly opinion. You don't need to be a scholar to know that Hoover was president in 1929 and that it had to be Roosevelt who was concurrent with Hitler's rise. You can't just move FDR's presidency back to 1929. There is too much evidence against it no matter what kind of scholar makes the claim.
This makes no sense. Wiseman and Grayson are both linguistic scholars who have catalogued, translated and published hundreds of Babylonian/Mesopotamian texts from discovered tablets, bricks, temple walls, etc. Furuli, for example, never questioned their scholarship, nor did he make a coherent theory or argument based on linguistic scholarship. His argument is based on trying to denigrate some of the data on the VAT4956 tablet by saying it was tampered with, even though ALL the evidence says otherwise. The rest of his argument is to say that a portion of the lunar data on the VAT4956 tablet is a better fit for a different year, even though the data says otherwise. So he never invokes "linguistic scholarship." He invokes an astronomy program, which he uses inconsistently. He claims NOT to be a professional astronomer, and is therefore invoking AMATEUR status for his claim, not the status of a scholar on which to base his claims.
There has never been a problem on that count. The Babylonian data agrees with the chronology of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah. Individuals might have a specific interpretation that they might WISH had been confirmed by the Babylonian data, but there has never been a contradiction between the Babylonian account and the Bible account. The Babylonian secular data helps to corroborate the Bible account, a fact which can help more people to see the Bible as a trustworthy historical account.
This proposal is interesting and is quite similar to what has already been presented tentatively by Allen Smith and some other names associated with his accounts. But it tends to start with a date and then tries to match circumstances to that date -- which is backwards. The Bible doesn't just say it was in Nebuchadnezzar's time that Jerusalem was attacked, but it says it was in his 18th year. It says that the siege was about 10 years prior to that. The Bible account even indicates prior incursions and deportations before the siege. Of course, these other accounts associated with Allen Smith have also tentatively raised the possibility that the Bible scribe is making a mistake, having written down this evidence years after it had occurred, and that the years could belong to the father Nabopolassar. The year 607 could have therefore matched the 19th/18th year of Nabopolassar, not Nebuchadnezzar, he has indicated. Of course the entire purpose of this proposal is to save 607 even if it effectively ends the Judean king on the throne shortly after Josiah's death in 609.
It can save, 607, and therefore save 1914, but at what cost?

Sure. I know that I have already quoted him in a previous conversation on this topic, which I will show below. But I will also clip a picture of the paragraph I am referring to on page 333 of Furuli's book so you can see it for yourself:
Here's what Furuli says on page 333:
Conclusion
The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of
VAT 4956: The Diary may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern
times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in
modern times; the obverse side was made by the help of a mold, and the signs on the
reverse side and the edges were written by someone. Because of the excellent fit of all 13
lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions
represent observations from that year, and that the original lunar tablet that was copied in
Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary positions are
approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that
they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year
37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from
588/87 and the planetary positions seem to be backward calculations for the positions of
the planets in 568/67.

I'm not attempting to respond to the points you made in response to @Ann O'Maly. Still, I'm glad you pointed out some of the things you did. I think these points are often missed. I think that it's easy for people to think that Furuli has somehow given good evidence that VAT 4956 actually points to 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would be pretty much the same as saying that 607 is correct because: 588+37-18=607. But 100% of scholars who have studied the tablet believe that the majority of the astronomical dates on the calendar point to 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would be pretty much the same as saying that 607 is incorrect because 568+37-18=587.
I think that a lot of people still don't know that Furuli actually claims that the MOST valuable/critical of the astronomical dates (readings/observations) on this tablet point to 587 as his 18th year, and that the tablet therefore mostly shows that 607 is incorrect. To repeat, the point that is often missed is this:
FURULI admits that the most valuable/critical readings on VAT4956 show 587 as the correct date for Jerusalem's destruction. FURULI admits that most valuable/critical readings on VAT4956 show 607 as the incorrect date for the destruction of Jerusalem. I think a lot of people are still surprised that Furuli actually admits this. This is why, even after [incorrectly] claiming that SOME the data on the tablet, the lunar data, fits the WT 607 date, he still has to overcome the MOST valuable and critical of the data, the planetary data.  So even after making a claim about the lunar data which proves to be demonstrably false, he still has to claim that the tablet might have been tampered with anyway!
How silly is that? If he still has to admit that much of the tablet's data still goes against the WTS 607 date, then why go to the trouble of making a claim that denigrates only a part of the data? If he can't get rid of ALL the data and is stuck with admitting that he still needs a second theory that the text was tampered with, then why worry about the first theory, that only covers a portion? How would anyone know that it wasn't the lunar data that had been tampered with to make them look like they might support the WTS 607 date? (Of course, neither side was actually tampered with, and both sides actually show what Furuli only admits about all the lunar data on one side: that the tablet shows that the WTS 607 date is incorrect.)
------------------------
Imagine how honest you would think I was if I had a coin that had 587 stamped on both sides. One side is clearly and unmistakably stamped 587, but the other side is a bit worn out, so I go around telling people that this coin might actually be from 607. Here's my imaginary conversation about such a coin:
YOU: Why do you say that this coin is actually from 607, when everyone who has studied it says that it reads: 587? ME: Because if you look at the worn-out side, and squint just right, you can see that a 5 looks a bit like a 6, and if you put a line through a 0 it can look like an 8, so I think date on the worn-out side of the coin is actually 607. YOU: But if you flip the coin over, it says 587 even bigger and more clearly on that other side. ME: That's because someone in modern times must have tampered with the coin. YOU: Then how do you know they didn't tamper with the worn-out side? ME: Because 1914!  

That's what a lot of people at Bethel must still think. Can't blame them, I guess. But this bit of history is rarely described as it actually happened. But even if it had been predicted, it wouldn't make the theory true. The biggest problem is that 1914 was to usher in an era of peace. Initially 1914 was predicted as a time when there would NOT be war. Here is the prediction as it stood just 20 years prior to 1914, in the Watch Tower, July 15, 1894 p.226:
But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. How many times have you read that in the publications describing what was supposedly predicted "decades in advance"? Instead, because chronology usually accompanies dishonesty, unfortunately, we had this to say at a time when the Society was trying to bolster belief and speculation in 1975: (from the Awake! January 22, 1973, p.8
"Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of "the conclusion of the system of things." One of the very reasons that Adventism became so popular in the early 1800's is that a Bible prophecy that had been predicted through chronology in the late 1600's had actually come true near the end of the 1700's. Russell was a strong believer that this prediction had come true, and was therefore also a believer in some of the same predicted prophetic phenomenon that was seen in the early decades of the 1800's. I've described this before, so perhaps I'll find a link to the post rather than describing it again here. It was that amazingly accurate prediction, however, that got so many religions caught up in this search for more dates.

Don't know if this was intentionally offered as support for what I have been saying in recent posts, but I thank you for it anyway. Currently, our faith in the correctness of the year 539 (from which we derive 607) is based on faith in the Babylonian Chronicles and their secular equivalents. 539 and 607 are secular dates, of course, and the weight of evidence is more in the theories of men than what is actually written in God's inspired word, scripture. I agree 100% that the Babylonian Chronicles tell an incomplete story, that has been interpreted. Our faith should be in the Bible without so much reliance on interpretations that are based on theories of men.
Well said!

It's interesting that 539 BCE can be called a 'pivotal date' when the Bible doesn't provide a year date for Cyrus' conquest of Babylon. Instead, we have to derive the 539 BCE year date from,
one of the Babylonian chronicles (which indicates the event happened in Nabonidus' 17th year), Babylonian astronomical tablets year-dated to kings' reigns, providing BCE anchor points, Babylonian king lists which we can use to count forwards or backwards from those astronomically fixed anchor points. In contrast, we can affirm 597 BCE because,
the Bible dates the siege of Jerusalem and its surrender to Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year (inclusive counting), a Babylonian chronicle dates the same event to Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year (exclusive counting - cp. Jer. 52:28), some Babylonian astronomical tablets are year-dated to Nebuchadnezzar's reign, thereby providing BCE anchor points, simple math means we can count Nebuchadnezzar's years forwards or backwards from those anchor points, but paradoxically, Neil thinks it nonsense for 597 BCE to be termed a 'pivotal date.'
Go figure! 
 

Looking into these facts can be very faith-strengthening. For example, the Bible says that:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1)  Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. However, if it's really true that we need to be able to trace the times and seasons to 539, but dismiss the same evidence that gave us 539 so that we can claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, then obviously most of us don't have access to the evidence and the reasons why we do this. If we really need to have things written to identify the times and seasons when Jesus began his rule and his parousia, and if this is truly an important part of being on the watch for Jesus' parousia, then we make a mockery out of Paul's words and Jesus' words.
We say the opposite of what Paul said above, because I guess we just don't think that what he said has a "ring of truth." We prefer to contradict Paul.
So once we understand just a little bit more about the claim that is being made, our faith should be strengthened in the correctness of the Bible.

I think these comments show a lot of insight. Out of every 100 scholars who have taken an interest in this time period prior to 1970, 99% of them have problem never heard of 1914, and yet all 100 of those scholars inadvertently discredited our theory about 1914. However, like @Gone Fishing said, I do think that for JWs and exJWs involved in this discussion, 1914 must be at the heart of the matter. How can it not be? The only reason that we, as JWs, take any interest at all in 607 is because of 1914. The only reason we take any interest in the 70 years itself is because of 1914. The only reason we discuss Daniel 4 is 1914. A year has never gone by since the 1900's, when the WTS did not mention 1914 several times.
We already have 68 years of searchable Watchtowers in the WT CD since 1950, and we can easily see the importance. No other "prophetic" date (BCE) is considered even a tenth as important to us as those which are said to support 1914. For example:
We date Adam's creation to 4026 B.C.E. and Watchtowers since 1950 have mentioned this date only about 18 times in only 13 different Watchtower magazines. (10 of the 13 were in the period from 1966 to 1975). We date the beginning of the 70 weeks of years to 455 C.E. and this has been mentioned in about 45 different Watchtowers since 1950. We date the end of the 70 weeks of years to 36 C.E. and this has been mentioned in about 95 different Watchtowers. 1914 of course gets mentioned several times a year, often in most of the Watchtower magazine issues that are published in any particular year: nearly 4,024 mentions since 1950. 607 has been mentioned in at least one Watchtower per year (usually several times a year) in every year since 1950 (except 2010): over 850 times. 539, of course, is mentioned as the "evidence" for 607, but with only about 250 mentions since 1950. So, you make a good point, Ann, about scholars, but the subtext among JWs and ex-JWs is always going to be related to 1914.
This was pretty obvious when members of the Writing Department and researchers at Bethel quickly realized that if they questioned 607, they would likely be questioned themselves with a view to being disfellowshipped for apostasy. If you questioned 607, it was considered obvious that you must also be questioning 1914. Anyone could connect the dots. In fact, when Carl Jonsson's manuscript arrived at Brooklyn Bethel, two of the writers told me it was called "the hot potato" by several others because no one wanted it to land on their desk. They knew it was a Lose-Lose situation. For months it just remained on a shelf. People made excuses why they didn't have the time to address it.
A lot of people who don't take the time to look into such things don't realize that there is always some "Biblical" method to take prophecy and find a way to interpret it to reach somewhere into every single century, perhaps every single decade. Russell and various adventist-minded predecessors had been able to single out every decade since the 1780's to the 1900's with time-based prophecies. There was so much repetition, intertwining, and "ring of truth" about such dates, under Russell, that they soon became "God's dates." (1874, etc.) After Rutherford dropped almost every one of those old time prophecies, the only ones remaining that could reach into his own century (to 1914) were the 7 times of Leviticus and Daniel. After the 7 times of Leviticus was dropped, Daniel 4 was all the WT had left to reach into the 20th century. But look around the Internet, and you'll see that there is still enough numerology waiting to be extracted from Bible prophecies to reach every decade in the 2000's too. A little bit of 2520 days here, and a little bit of 2300 days there, and I'm sure there would be fodder for the year 2333, 2553, 2370, 2590, if this system could last that long. And if those methods ran out, there's always the potential claim someone could make that it was only unreliable secular chronology that told us Jesus was born in 2 B.C.E., when reliable "Bible chronology" obviously puts his birth closer to 100 C.E., then 200 C.E. etc., etc., as needed. 
This is why, for myself, I'm not so concerned that 586 and 587 are the most reliable dates for the destruction of Jerusalem. It's only because of what the Christian Greek Scriptures say about chronology that I could still not have accepted the entire 1914 theory. I couldn't accept it for scriptural reasons, even if Jerusalem had actually been destroyed on June 28, 607 or July 28, 607 B.C.E. and it was proven to be 2520 years to the day before Archduke Ferdinand was shot or WWI started in 1914.

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

The rest of the post should make it clearer however that "There is nothing wrong with the WT counting back 70 years from 539" as long as the WT admits that you can't honesty use the term "539" without also accepting that "587" is the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. I have no problem starting the 70 years in 609 or even 607, but I can't honestly use the term 609 or 607 unless I'm referring to a time more than 20 years before Jerusalem was destroyed.
But it would also be dishonest of me to make a claim that "Bible chronology" would place Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year in the year 607. If you have been told 1,000 times that this idea shows that we put "Bible" chronology over "secular" chronology then the whole idea will have a "ring of truth" -- but it's still dishonest.

There is nothing wrong with the WT counting back 70 years from 539. I believe that the 70 years starts from 70 years prior to 539, too. And of course, there is a definite connection between the 70 years given to Babylon and the chance for Judea to pay off its sabbaths. So Judea also pays off its sabbaths during the desolation of the 70 years Jehovah gave authority to Babylon. To me the Bible seems pretty clear about ending the 70 years when the kingdom of Persia takes over and not one or two years later, as the Watchtower suggests. That's because of what the 70 years really are, 70 years for Babylon's dominion, not 70 years of total desolation of Judea. However, I am not a stickler for all Biblical numbers having to be exactly counted the way we immediately think we should count them. When the Bible says a man's years are 70 or 80 (lifespan) I don't think that this means no one has ever lived to be 82 or died naturally at age 68, or 75. When the Bible says Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, I don't think that we need be concerned that it was all of Saturday, but perhaps only a few short hours on Friday afternoon and Sunday early morning. So, if the WT has good reason to believe it ran from 607 to 537, I would be very happy with that.
But here is the snag. 539 is not a Biblical date. It's a secular date. The reasons we know that this secular date is accurate are here:
because it's 66 years from Nebuchadnezzar's first year, because it's 9 years before Cambyses' first year, because it's 23 years after Evil Merodach's first year, because it's 21 years after Neriglissar's first year, because it's 17 years after Labasi-Marduk's short reign because it's 17 years after Nabonidus' first year because it's 87 years after Nabopolassar's first year In other words the only reason we know 539 is accurate is because we know the lengths of the kings' reigns from Nabopolassar to Cambyses, and a bit beyond (in both directions). We should never speak of the year 539 unless we are accepting that it is a date 66 years after the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, for example. In other words, if we say that we believe we can use the date 539 for the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon, then we can only say this if we believe that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587.
---------------
Another reason we know that 587 and 539 are accurate is because there are not just one or two, but DOZENS of points throughout the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings where we have astronomical evidence that points to only one particular year. In every case there is no question or contradiction about all of them fitting perfectly with each other. Not all data is still readable, of course, but all that is fits the timeline without contradicting the other forms of evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there are literally tens of thousands of clay tablets that have no particular political or religious purpose that just happen to coincide with exactly the same lengths of each kings' reign as the later "king lists" that were copied and retained in much later years. Also, the clay tablets only match the same number of years of each king's reign that also coincidentally happens to fit all the other evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there is a second thread of information that runs through hundreds of the clay tablets which provides a second witness by giving us the names of another parallel "dynasty" of the generations of the house of Egibi, who were something like the CEO's or bank presidents. They also happen to confirm the exact lengths of all the kings in the same way that coincides with all other forms of evidence.
[This form of cross-checking in enormously helpful, especially when a loan is known to have started in a certain year of one king and one "bank president," and then end in a certain year of the next king. Also if a certain "bank president" is always active for every transaction that happens in the early part of a particular year of a particular king, but the son of that "bank president" is said to be the new "bank president" for the remainder of that king's year and even into the first few years of the next king, we have a whole new way to validate the order of the kings and the lengths of their reigns. It becomes similar to the way, in Egyptian chronology, when the records of special bulls were kept along with their ages and under which king's year they were born, and under which king's year they died.]
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because of a couple of kings' lists that were discovered to be contemporary with almost the entire set of Neo-Babylonian kings. These are not late versions of kings' lists like those that survive through Ptolemy's works -- which also happen to confirm the Neo-Babylonian period of lengths of kings' reigns, with no contradictions to any of the other pieces of evidence.
----------------
By the same token, if we don't believe that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587, then we have no right to speak of the first [accession] year of Cyrus over Babylon as 539. Simply put, using the date 539 means that we accept the same dating system that puts Neb's 19th year in 587. It would be dishonest to speak of 539, if we didn't believe that.
Also, because Jewish and Babylonian years don't start on January 1st and end on December 31st, it's a little more proper to say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year starts in 587 and ends in 586. Also since Nebuchadnezzar became king late in 605, this was only a partial year, or accession year, and his "official" first year was therefore 604. Therefore by that count, 587 started his 18th year official year, but the Bible often uses a method where the accession year is counted and with that method this would be called his 19th year. 
*Note: some of the years and lengths mentioned above are going to be one year off due to avoiding the lengthiness of precise language accounting for the difference in cardinal/ordinal - accession/non-accession.

I can only suggest that you try not to feel provoked whenever someone makes an observation.
Actually, you must have misunderstood, because that's completely false. I made the observation that the author wants to move the date of VAT 4956 by 200 years from the 2nd Edition, not the first edition you are claiming I got it from. Using the link, I noticed that I could not easily find out the exact date the author wished to assign to VAT 4956. Although there was enough information to detect it, it might not have been easy to follow the logic, and it might have looked like just an opinion. Since it was easy to find the exact number spelled out in the first edition, I knew this would make the point easier to explain and follow. 
At any rate, I can't help but see how clearly your misunderstandings have already been answered -- multiple times. So I'm only responding at this point in case of confusion to others.
I wasn't too concerned with the first question that @Foreigner asked @scholar JW. References to VAT 4956 being "wrong by about 200 years" are also there in the first edition, and the author therefore sees it as "the most important astronomical artifact" to overcome (p.7). So it remains a part of the subtext, even for page 35, in that first post. However, I was responding to another question that Foreigner asked as follows . . . .
Foreigner was evidently under the impression that "this wasn't adjusted" not realizing evidently that it was adjusted. 
Not true at all. In fact, I showed exactly how the author's calculation for VAT 4956 was made exactly to fit the theory described and exactly how it fit in to the theory mentioned on page 35.
Yes, these are the standard dates that the author never agrees with on any pages of the book in any edition. And if you are asking, yes, he also thinks that 605-586=19. But that doesn't matter because he thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed in 390 BC. And he also thinks that the Jews remained in Babylon for only 49 years. (But he also says that they were returned after only 40 years in 350 BC, rather than 539/8.)

As you indicate, it all depends on the value of the evidence. For some reason the Watchtower writers thought they were dependent only on Ptolemy for many years and thought that they could speak about how accurate Ptolemy was when they liked a date, and then denigrated Ptolemy as inaccurate when they didn't like a date.
Also, for some time, especially with the early 1960's release of a public talk outline on the "Gentile Times," the Watchtower, perhaps inadvertently, began a kind of competition between VAT 4956 and BM 33066, by often mentioning how this tablet proved that Cyrus' first year was 539. (In the talk outline, it was not called BM 33066, but "Strm Kambys 400" which speakers just called "Strom Cambyses" for some reason. I heard the talk from 3 different speakers over the years.)
But it turned out that every possible way in which attempts were made to denigrate VAT 4956 would have just as troublesome, if not more so, for BM 33066. More recently, this has been admitted, better in "Insight" than in the "Aid" book, and better, even in the infamous 2011 articles where Furuli's roughshod ride over the VAT 4956 evidence somehow went unchecked.
*** w11 10/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon. Not that there is any real reason to doubt the overall value of either VAT 4956 or BM 33066 in helping to confirm the dates for the Neo-Babylonian/Persian empire. But if the same kind of looseness of interpretation and inaccurate analysis had been allowed on BM 33066 that the Watchtower publications (and Furuli) had already imposed on VAT 4956, then this tablet would be considered to be of even less value than the already denigrated VAT 4956.

Have not completed all of them yet. Just all of "Samaria" and "Jerusalem." Portions of all the others.
It seems very probable. But, no, I can't simply agree. He's very likely right but I believe he took a shortcut. There is another methodology which is slightly better in my opinion. It takes a lot longer, is less practical, but might be rewarding. It makes use of the decision table, not just to filter out one hypothesis or another, but to go ahead and calculate all the reasonable possibilities (including changes in data) that the decision table makes available.
The calculations will then result, not in specific answers, but in the possible range of each answer with a terminus on each end. It's not an unknown method, but few would have the patience to test it against the entire king lists of of Israel and Judea, for example, and also throw in about a dozen pieces of Babylonian evidence into the mix. In this method, which makes use of ranges (terminus ante quem, terminus post quem, terminus ad quem and terminus a quo) you can even test what might appear to be unreasonable possibilities along with the reasonable ones, such as testing if Xth year could mean x, x-1, x+1, or even x+3 or x+20. If there is a questionable text that is different in the LXX or MT or DSS you could test special ranges here too. Believe it or not the possibilities will start resolving themselves much earlier than you might guess if you merely set limits to the number of inconsistencies you are willing to test for. Or you could test for a nearly infinite set of possibilities and keep only the solutions that produced the least inconsistencies.
I am not at all worried about that. From what I can surmise so far, the range for when Jerusalem's Temple was burned falls on either the fifth month and 7th day of 587 or 586. These two dates can be potentially 13 months apart, and that is therefore the range that fits the most evidence, the most data, and therefore the most reasonable hypothesis.
As you know, it shouldn't even matter if you could pinpoint a specific day or year. The siege started as much as two years earlier. The wall was broken in the fourth month, about three months earlier. The famine lasted for months. In fact, the judgment itself was announced to come through Babylon decades earlier. There were several deportations going all the way back to a time when Nebuchadnezzar had just taken over as the official king. According to the "Insight" book:
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim . . . .—Jer 46:2. The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat . . .he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” . . . in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. (See ASHKELON.) During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1) That's always been our "holy grail" to see if we could find a reputable sounding title that allows for 607 as a possible date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. So, I don't even have to look it up to know that either you or Faust are completely wrong. But if you can quote the evidence I'll read it and give it a benefit of the doubt if it's true. Of course, it's best, as you said to someone else, to read the entire book before judging specific points made in it.
It looked like you were talking down to this audience when you implied that no one here could understand decision tables when you said "...Young's use of Decision Tables or Analysis . . . Try explaining that to this audience. Must keep things simple!!!"
I've seen this "so-called" methodology hundreds of times, and I think you know it doesn't stand up, or else you would probably have had a response to its weaknesses after all these years. Defending someone else (Rodger Young) who uses a methodology that gets him to a very reasonable 587 is hardly evidence that the WTS used a methodology to reach 607.
Who's pretending now. Several others DID originate such challenging ideas. Russell even dealt with some of them prior to 1916. Rutherford dealt with them especially from 1922 to 1925 -- several of the very same issues. This includes the so-called 20 year gap, too. Jonsson is a latecomer to this.
Also, you should understand that my interest is not about the chronology itself, but because we need to clean up all forms of dishonesty. The primary point should be keeping the congregation clean. We also have the direct statements of Jesus that we should not be looking for signs in order to try to understand the times and seasons. In times such as this we could all be better Christians if we followed the counsel of Paul, Peter, and Jesus.
(Luke 21:8, 9) 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. 9 Furthermore, when you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified. For these things must take place first, but the end will not occur immediately.” It has resulted in dishonest scholarship about the "parousia" the "synteleia" among many other doctrines. Bible chronologies depend directly upon genealogies:
(1 Timothy 1:4-7) 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 so strongly. Really, the reason Jesus gave us these instructions was clearly so that we would be better Christians at all times not because we knew the about the times and seasons. That's what all the illustrations of Matthew 24 and 25 are about. Peter summed it up well too:
(2 Peter 3:8-18) 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell. 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. And of course one of the most famous lines that the apostle Paul wrote about the "times and seasons" is this:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) 5 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. Please don't mix up the reasons why this discussion is important from a "Christian" perspective. All this so-called knowledge about chronology and Bible genealogies, and the resolution of what king ruled when, it's all foolishness. It's disrespectful to the very claim in the Bible that:
(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) 16 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. How disrespectful it must be to Jehovah who tells us that the Bible makes us fully competent and completely equipped, but then be told that we must also understand that 539, a secular date never mentioned in the Bible, is something like an absolute date, a touchstone that is necessary to understand an important doctrine for our day. These secular dates like 607, 539, 537, are somehow required to be fully competent about our doctrines, and required to set things straight about the final generation, to pinpoint important events that must have happened in 1914, 1919, 1922 -- all secular dates, too. Then there are the dozens of problems with related doctrines, such as the need to make wicked Nebuchadnezzar represent God's righteous kingdom. etc. etc. etc.

.
I'm glad you have a sense of humour. If you are interested in my opinion about what it really means to defend something, you could start a new thread.  I'd like to keep this thread a little more on the topic of the chronology behind 607.
Perhaps. Although I see nothing wrong with being anxious about being right, when it's the same as being anxious for the truth. Even zealousness is a good thing as long as it is for accurate knowledge and truth. 
(Romans 10:2) . . .For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. On this issue of Rodger Young being the first scholar to introduce Methodology as a term of nomenclature in Chronology, I'll withhold judgment, especially after seeing that Google Books returns thousands of references throughout the 20th century discussing the terms together. I believe his methodology is described exactly as we would hope that all scholars would have considered. It's a matter of being thorough and considering all possibilities before selecting the best options. I believe that Luke himself refers to such a methodology:
(Luke 1:1-4) 1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·oph?i·lus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally. Decision tables happen to be a shorthand way of making sure that all those options were considered without having to spell them all out. You may have noticed that I used the equivalent of decision tables in a couple of previous discussions here. I assume it's a habit picked up in Computer Science classes, where it is a necessary tool for tracing the logic of a conclusion, or backtracking combinatorial algorithms, or quality assurance testing to make sure no possible path is missed. But these are also taught in LSAT (Law School Admissions Tests) as a way of making sure that potential students can "solve" for all logical permutations in a legal situation.
We can easily believe that many scholars have taken shortcuts before drawing their conclusions, and have seen plenty of evidence of this. But it's really a good reminder to always consider all possibilities in the most accurate detail possible before drawing conclusions. As of today, I have now read several of Rodger Young's articles, and have appreciated his attempts at accuracy. 
How could he support 607? It's just made-up pseudo-archaeology with no solid basis. It pretends you can speak about 539 (the 67th year after the start of Nebuchadnezzar reign) without accepting that 587/6 was the19th year after the start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, or vice versa.
I don't think you should underestimate this audience, especially if you think it's a reason to shortchange them on facts. A few will believe anything that fits what they've already accepted in the past, but that's not always going to be your typical Witness who finds reasons to visit topics like this one.
You are completely wrong here. I also find that his study on on the fall of Samaria, which the WT dates to 740 and which he and others date to the first half of 723n is another study that confirms exactly what I said. And it's also an indictment of the sloppy methodology of the WTS. Not that he ever mentions the WTS, of course. He may not even be aware of the theory the WTS promotes, but everything he presents about his methodology shows the WT theory to be even more ridiculous after the kind of scrutiny he recommends. I'm definitely going to make sure that the WTS is aware of his work in the next few days. On the inclusion of point #7, I wanted to include it already but thought of space considerations. Here it is, and it is an excellent explanation of where the WTS has gone wrong for so many years:
The use of Decision Tables reveals that previous studies have overlooked many possibilities that were entirely consistent with the ideas of the author of the study, but which were not explored simply because they were never thought of. This failure to explore all the possibilities has been a major problem in the studies of OT chronology, and one that has led to significant confusion in the chronologies produced. It is to be hoped that future studies will not declare that some new solution is to be preferred, or the text needs to be emended, until it is demonstrated that there are no other sets of hypotheses that better explain the data. Ignoring this practice will reduce the credibility of the study. The WTS has clearly lacked methodology, and has failed to even indicate an attempt to support the possibilities indicated by all the scriptures, much less even 10% of the secular evidence that the WTS half-relies on as absolutely true, and half-relies on as absolutely false. It would show up just how pretentious the WTS has been in selectively finding weaknesses that they don't admit are the same weaknesses for the secular dates that are relied upon.
And the first paragraph on page 21 sets out exactly what @Ann O'Maly has been saying: that it's not a matter of scholars divided over 586 and 587 due to any secular Babylonian records, but to the way in which they interpret the difference between the accession and non-accession years in the Bible record. You appeared to promote the idea that scholars should be ashamed of this "confusion" and kept implying that it was not due to the Bible's inconsistent methods of dating. Rodger Young points out this inconsistency in the Bible accounts several times. It even shows up in his other treatises. For example, on the dating of the destruction of Samaria. I'll quote it because it provides Young's own summary of a portion of the method he used in the Jerusalem paper:
In Young, “Jerusalem,” it was shown that the years for Zedekiah are given by the non-accession method in both 2 Kings and Jeremiah. This was not recognized earlier because the switch to non-accession counting came right at the end of the Judean kingdom and no simple clues are given to indicate that the change was taking place. By applying a proper methodology that first asks how Jeremiah and 2 Kings 25 treat the reign of Zedekiah, we can determine that the authors used non-accession reckoning, but this still does not provide the reason for the change in the method of counting. The reason, indeed, can be as arbitrary as the whim of the reigning king. Zedekiah could have said, “This is the way we’re going to count my years. Don’t ask any more questions.” Although we do not know why the change took place, if we refused to consider anything but accession years for Zedekiah we would be guilty of a Factor One error (forcing our presuppositions on the data). One scholar who explored non-accession counting for Zedekiah was Alberto Green. . . Green was correct in saying that non-accession reckoning is not used for Jehoiakim in 2 Kings, but both Jeremiah and 2 Kings use non-accession reckoning for Zedekiah. It is unfortunate that Green missed this, because his article exhibits one of the best examples of attempting to examine all the possibilities before settling on a solution to a chronological problem. Young therefore relies on knowledge of the Bible's inconsistency. And the WTS, of course, admits this same inconsistency as I pointed out already from the "Insight" book. But his best point is the more general counsel to examime all possibilities and not force presuppositions on the data, as the WTS has proven itself guilty of doing by not considering 90% of the data, and pretending that a denigration of 10% will suffice in denigrating the rest. (But forgetting to mention that the WTS also relies completely on the data they denigrate.) The shame is highlighted if a decision table would be shown.
I really couldn't care less what Carl Jonsson used as a methodology. It's pretty easy to do this yourself anyway with all the evidence out their on display for anyone to scrutinize. The fact that Carl Jonsson happens to get the same 587 answer that Rodger Young got might be impressive to others, especially if they are convinced that he was able to do this even without a methodology. So I guess that Rodger Young was able to confirm Jonsson's conclusion of 587. I have to say that I'm not fully convinced that Carl Jonsson and Rodger Young are necessarily correct, only because it's not clear that Zedekiah is the only king (or specific passages are the only places) for which the non-accession reckoning was used over the accession year reckoning. I believe I could still make a reasonable case for 586, but a difference of one year does not matter to me. For me, this is not part of a 1914 calculation anyway, nor would it be for you, if you chose between 587 and 586 as the correct year. Even if it was proven to be 587 and not 586, I'm pretty sure you'd still go for 607, at least until a few seconds after the WTS changes the doctrine on us again.
I'm glad you did. I still can't fathom any other way anyone could have drawn a solid conclusion. 
 

Even if 607 had been the correct date for the destruction of Jerusalem (all the evidence says otherwise) and even if there was supposed to be a 2,520 year period counting from that point (the Bible never mentions that there should be one), we still have another interesting issue to look at:
The Bible evidently doesn't consider the final destruction of Jerusalem, when Zedekiah was removed from the throne at Jerusalem, to be the most important chronological event from which to start counting time. The event that starts a new era of time in Matthew's chronology is "the deportation to Babylon," 11 years earlier.
(Matthew 1:11-17) 11 Jo·siʹah became father to Jec·o·niʹah and to his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 12 After the deportation to Babylon, Jec·o·niʹah became father to She·alʹti·el;. . .  Matʹthan became father to Jacob; 16 Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. 17 All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations. "Jeconiah and his brothers" included, of course, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah.
(2 Kings 23:30) . . .Then the people of the land took Jo·siʹah’s son Je·hoʹa·haz and anointed him and made him king in place of his father.
(Jeremiah 1:3) 3 It came also in the days of Je·hoiʹa·kim the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until the completion of the 11th year of Zed·e·kiʹah the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month.
In fact, the era beginning from the "deportation to Babylon" at the time of Jeconiah and his brothers was, indeed, a period from which a new reckoning of time was counted. Note the examples from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, that indicate that this era was now the official era by which to synchronize the Jewish chrononolgy with that of the nations around them -- even 26 years after the Temple was destroyed:
(Jeremiah 52:31) 31 Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah and brought him out of prison. (Ezekiel 1:2, 3) On the fifth day of the month—that is, in the fifth year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin— 3 the word of Jehovah came to Ezekiel . . .
(Ezekiel 8:1) And in the sixth year, in the sixth month, on the fifth day of the month, when I was sitting in my house and the elders of Judah were sitting before me, the hand of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah took hold of me there.
(Ezekiel 20:1) Now in the seventh year, in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, some of the elders of Israel came and sat down before me to inquire of Jehovah.
(Ezekiel 24:1, 2) The word of Jehovah again came to me in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, saying: 2 “Son of man, record this date, this very day. The king of Babylon has begun his attack against Jerusalem on this very day.
(Ezekiel 26:1, 2) In the 11th year, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gateway of the peoples has been broken! Everything will come my way, and I will become rich now that she is devastated’;
(Ezekiel 29:1, 2) In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the 12th day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, turn your face toward Pharʹaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt.
(Ezekiel 29:17, 18) Now in the 27th year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 18 “Son of man, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon made his army labor greatly against Tyre.. . .
(Ezekiel 33:21) At length in the 12th year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month of our exile, a man who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said: “The city has been struck down!”
(Ezekiel 40:1) In the 25th year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the 14th year after the city had fallen, on that very day the hand of Jehovah was upon me, and he took me to the city.
 @Foreigner suggests that some of the literature on the subject is often unclear, such that the entire period from 597 to 587 is sometimes ambiguous when referring to the destructive events upon Jerusalem. The last reference above in Ezekiel 40 shows that the final destruction of Jerusalem did also become a point of reference, but it was not the one that continues to get the most attention in the scriptures.

This is quite a surprising claim. I have looked through your comments on JWD and see that you have fared no better there than you have here. Also, what do you mean by saying that the studies of Rodger Young's "followed from observations" made by you? Not only does he not mention you, he completely disagrees with you about the date for Jerusalem's destruction. (For what it's worth, it turns out he agrees with me and thousands of others who have looked into the evidence.)
The remainder of this post is from the conclusion from his article "When Did Jerusalem Fall" (published 2004) as found here http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf
vi. conclusion
This study has examined all texts in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings that bear on the question, “When did Jerusalem fall?” Many side issues needed to be addressed to answer the question satisfactorily. A technique called Decision Analysis was used to ensure that all combinations of hypotheses were considered and that any hidden assumptions were brought out into the open. The analysis allowed us to rule out many presuppositions that were accepted in former studies and to replace them with presuppositions that do not contradict the data (the received text). The conclusions from the analysis are as follows.
(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year.
(2) Ezekiel consistently dated events from the time that Jehoiachin was taken captive in early 597 bc. He used Tishri years in all his reckoning.
(3) Similarly, 2 Kings 24–25 consistently used Tishri years and non-accession reckoning for Judean kings. For Nebuchadnezzar, non-accession years, starting in Nisan, were used.
(4) In the writings of Jeremiah (which excludes the fifty-second chapter), Jeremiah consistently used Tishri years for Judah, as did Ezekiel and the source for the last chapters of 2 Kings. This is in harmony with the usage of Judah throughout the monarchic period, in contrast to Thiele’s assumption that Jeremiah and Ezekiel used Nisan reckoning for Judah. Jeremiah used non-accession years for the kings of Judah and for Nebuchadnezzar. There is not enough information to determine if he started the years for Nebuchadnezzar in Tishri or Nisan; both assumptions fit the data.
 

You have created an almost comical juxtaposition when you mention the idea that "WT scholars have not been troubled" along with the methodology of Rodger Young. The following is from the same source quoted above, p.38 of Young's article where he gives an almost perfect description of the problematic methodology of the Watchtower's hypothesis about 607.
(6) None of these conclusions was arrived at by forcing presuppositions on the data found in the scriptural text received from the Masoretes, except perhaps the presupposition that when the data conflicted with one of our hypotheses, then any reasonable set of hypotheses which did not conflict with the data was to be preferred over the set which produced conflict. This approach may be contrasted with an approach which says that when a favorite set of hypotheses conflicts with the data, the data will be declared in error and no further effort will be expended to see if another set of hypotheses offers a better explanation. He here shows how his methodology contrasts with the flawed and embarrassing "methodology" of the WTS which simply declares that all the data must be declared to be in error if it doesn't fit 607. More correctly, all the data must be declared to be in error if it does not fit 1914, because the WTS has even changed the date of the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 to 607 when they discovered that it didn't help them reach 1914 correctly. They changed the supposed "absolute" date for the first year of Cyrus from 536 to 538. Therefore, for the Watchtower, the only real "absolute date" is 1914, and all data must be declared in error if it conflicts with 1914.

I would completely agree. The only reason that the WTS ever required the dates 606 and 536, was so that the Nebuchadnezzar's "seven times" of insanity could reach 1914. Those dates were later adjusted to 606+1 year, and 536+3years-2years so that 1914 could still be reached. There has never been any evidence for 606 or 607, so it had to be done through "pseudo-archaeology," pretending that all the evidence for 539 (which we liked) could be used separately from the rest of the evidence that 539 was based upon (which we didn't like).

Yes, Shiwiii, perhaps is as false as this false teaching:
(Galatians 2:11-13) “However, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense” Now, what if I openly declare the 1914 is a false teaching! I believe there is in the God’s word principles to guide my behavior:
(1 Corinthians 15:12) “Now if it is being preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how is it that some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” In this way, the Bible discourages spread different teachings between brothers. Of course, you’re saying: “it isn’t the same 1914 that the resurrection” … and you’re right.
But the Bible obliges me to refrain, to abstain to exercise some rights to benefit others: not eat meat or not make secular work on sabbath to protect the conscience of others.
(Romans 14:5-12) "One man judges one day as above another; …The one who observes the day observes it to Jehovah… the one who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, … Not one of us, in fact, lives with regard to himself only… But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. … So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God." Even Jesus Crist follow a “false teaching” to avoid stumble others:
(Matthew 17:27) “But that we do not cause them to stumble, go to the sea, cast a fishhook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth, you will find a silver coin. Take that and give it to them for me and you.”  
So, my attitude is not stumble others. And regarding the person on charge of teaching to the worldwide brotherhood, well, I’ve quoted before:
“each of us will render an account for himself to God”

I find it difficult and often embarrassing to discuss with people if these times are worse than the previous ones. I dislike focusing in “bad news”, you know: these earthquakes are more bad, the wars are more bad… Above all when my interlocutor is a well-informed person. This person easily could bring to my attention data as follows (from our publications)

*** g04 5/22 pp. 4-5 The Age-Old Fight for Better Health ***
[The Black Death] Within four years, say some historians, the plague spread throughout Europe and about a third of the population lost their life—perhaps between 20 million and 30 million people. Even remote Iceland was decimated. It is said that in the Far East, the population of China slumped from 123 million at the beginning of the 13th century to 65 million during the 14th century, apparently as a result of the plague and the accompanying famine.

No previous epidemic, war, or famine had ever caused such widespread suffering. “It was a disaster without equal in human history,” notes the book Man and Microbes. “Somewhere between one-quarter and one-half of the people in Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia perished.”
The Americas escaped the ravages of the Black Death, thanks to their isolation from the rest of the world. But oceangoing ships soon brought that isolation to an end. In the 16th century, a wave of epidemics that proved even more lethal than the plague ravaged the New World.

In 1518 an outbreak of smallpox erupted on the island of Hispaniola. Native Americans had never been exposed to smallpox before, and the effect was catastrophic. A Spanish eyewitness estimated that only a thousand people on the island survived. The epidemic soon spread to Mexico and Peru, with similar consequences.

The following century, when the Pilgrim settlers arrived in the area of Massachusetts in North America, they discovered that smallpox had practically cleared the land of inhabitants. “The natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox,” wrote Pilgrim leader John Winthrop.

Other epidemics followed smallpox. According to one source, by a century after Columbus’ arrival, imported diseases had wiped out 90 percent of the population of the New World. The population of Mexico had shrunk from 30 million to 3 million, that of Peru from 8 million to one million.
****************************
Yes, now I should mention there are more epidemies, wars and so. I, instead, prefer to discuss about the value of Bible advice, the gems about God’s personality and similar, positive ideas.

As JWI has pointed out. Christ sign would have no doubt (Matthew 24:30) “Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief” No debate, no discussion, no doubt. This was the exact answer of Jesus about the sign his disciples asked him before. 

I once heard a brother from GB, when visiting Spain, explain that there are TWO signs. The first (wars, famine, etc.) would happen on earth. The second one would be the sing of Son of Man, and this would happen on heavens.

Well, the fact is that Jesus only mention ONE sign. As impossible to deny as the flash of lightning. There is no necessity to struggle with unbelievers to try to convince them. 

What about wars, earthquakes and pestilence? Jesus, specifically said: 
 
(Matthew 24:6-8) “You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet. “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress” In other words. The wars, famine and calamities are proof we would be in THE BEGINNING of distress. Not a sign at all.

THE HORSEMEN

The picture well describes the universal taught about this vision: the catastrophic world conditions in the final era. We, the JW, properly view that these happenings occur after Jesus ride. Well, put it simple, I think this approximation has no scriptural base… at all. These are not world condition when Christ rules, they are, rather direct judgments of Christ against the enemies, when he starts his judgment against Babylon.

The proof? Always, always, always (three times) the Bible mention colorful horses, these meant angels, not situations:
 
(Zechariah 1:8-10) . . .“I saw a vision in the night. There was a man riding on a red horse, and he stood still among the myrtle trees in the ravine; and behind him there were red, reddish-brown, and white horses.” So I said: “Who are these, my lord?” The angel who was speaking with me replied: “I will show you who these are.” Then the man who was standing still among the myrtle trees said: “These are the ones whom Jehovah has sent out to walk about in the earth.”.  
(Zechariah 6:1-5) . . .Then I looked up again and saw four chariots coming from between two mountains, and the mountains were of copper. The first chariot had red horses, and the second chariot, black horses. The third chariot had white horses, and the fourth chariot, speckled and dappled horses. I asked the angel who was speaking with me: “What are these, my lord?” The angel answered me: “These are the four spirits of the heavens that are going out after having taken their station before the Lord of the whole earth. . . And, what we find as the mechanism using by Jehovah when punishing His enemies? These days that we’re reading Ezequiel, we are reading quite a few verses with the same idea: God will punish his enemies with: the sword of war,  famine and pest. Why not the same in the future?

Only one collateral idea. Will resurrect this persons? We have no problem to think that many of the people from ancient times who perished in that judgements, under the Babylonian or Assyrian siege will resurrect. Why not the people -or some people- during the Great Tribulation? Because is said the Hades is following the horsemen.

Well, I’m not completely sure about all of this. But I find it solves more problems than the contraire. 

I wish to mention regarding your quotes that I prefer using 1 Cor 13:12 regarding to our gradually increase in knowledge. Never Pro 4:18.
The Proverb, while is our favorite, cherished verse to probe that Jehovah teach us step by step, by no means Jehovah inspired Solomon to indicate this idea. If we read the context, the verse is talking about the behavior of bad and good persons, and how their respective life gradually improves or deteriorates.
As these ideas are always hidden for our “extended” applications, and never, never, never, ever is mentioned the correct and basic meaning, almost no one between we, the JW, can grasp the inspired meaning, only this “extended” one. A pity.
And yes, 1Cor 13:12 conveys perfectly the idea you’re talking about.

WAITING… AND FIGHTING
ARchiv@L, I appreciate your advice. Very laconic, but appropriate. Only to develop a little further my attitude, let me mention David example in, perhaps, the most difficult part of his life, when persecuted by Saul.

He had the temptation (as myself sometimes) to escape and wait if Jehovah fix the situation. But Jehovah had another plan for him:
(1 Samuel 22:5) In time Gad the prophet said to David: “Do not stay in the stronghold. Go from there into the land of Judah.” So David left and went into the forest of Heʹreth” And again in the middle of the fight…

And sure you remember when the future king was forced to run away between the Philistines, even in that painful situation, he continued to support the people of God… commanded by his worst enemy.
 
(1 Samuel 27:7, 8) “The length of time that David lived in the countryside of the Phi·lisʹtines was a year and four months. David would go up with his men to raid the Geshʹur·ites, the Girʹzites, and the A·malʹek·ites, for they were inhabiting the land that extended from Teʹlam as far as Shur and down to the land of Egypt”.  These wars, in spite of the opinion of his enemies, were considered, in reality “the wars of Jehovah” (1Sa 25:28)

To meditate in this example has helped to me to wait and fight. TO FIGHT against the outer enemy: the false religions and their false teachings: hell fire, trinity and so. I don’t meant fighting holding a banner in our conventions and shouting “the 1914 teaching is untruth”.

As I consider the Congregation has a Leader more wise and powerful than me, I WAIT he will fix any situation he considers worth of change when he considers the proper moment.