Srecko Sostar

Thanks @scholar JW for a succinct and clear summary of your position on the 20-year gap (several pages back).
MY SUMMARY below adds 4 or 5 items that I didn't spell out in posts yet, but the rest are a subset of the points from posts already in this thread.
The Watchtower publications depend on SECULAR chronology to be able to attach a BCE date to any Bible event. There are no BCE or CE (AD) dates in the Bible anywhere. Per the current Watchtower Library going back to 1950 for the Watchtower and the 1970's for other publications: there are 11,857 separate references to BCE dates in the current "Watchtower Library" and the MAJORITY of them are for the three dates: 539, 537 and 607.  Every time we ever read in a WTS publication the term "B.C.E." it means the WTS has depended on SECULAR chronology.
The WTS fully accepts the SECULAR chronology indicating Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. The exact same SECULAR chronology indicates that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE. The exact same SECULAR Chronology indicates that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587 BCE. The Bible associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible also associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible associates both years with this event, so SECULAR scholars must choose between 587 and 586 The Bible's ambiguity here is "cleverly" reassigned from the Bible to SECULAR scholars so that it can repeatedly be used as a means to discredit scholars -- so that both dates can be dismissed Discrediting scholars feeds into the repeated idea that 539 is now part of Bible chronology but 587/586 is only SECULAR chronology This allows the WTS to keep the original theory promoted by Barbour and Russell that all one has to do is go back 70 years from 536 (now 539*/538/537) to get the destruction of Jerusalem in 606 (now 607) and both of these dates can be promoted as BIBLE chronology. Any attempt to show the fallacy of the argument, or the evidence against the interpretation, can now be associated with choosing SECULAR experts over the BIBLE, and not recognizing that the SECULAR "wisdom of the world is foolishness with God" This tradition/theory/interpretation that we now call "BIBLE chronology" now requires that ALL the evidence for the SECULAR chronology that we accept for 539 must otherwise be rejected in order to support 607. Therefore the WTS must add 20 years to ALL the chronology evidence BEFORE 539 and not touch any dates from the same evidence AFTER 539. Unfortunately for the WTS theory, the Bible locks in the length of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar to 43 years, and in support of external evidence for 539, the WTS is partially reliant on SECULAR inscriptions referring to the length of the reign of the last king conquered by Cyrus in 539 (the 17 years of Nabonidus) That would mean that the 20-year gap must be theorized to fit within a period known to be only 6 years long according to ALL the existing chronological evidence of the period (from the exact same set of evidence accepted for 539) The need to turn that 6-year period into a 24-year period becomes an awkward quest because of the inscriptions, kings lists, and astronomy tablets that give consistent evidence that there is not even a one-year gap anywhere in the period. NOT PRESENTED YET: The evidence from the TENS of THOUSANDS of mundane business documents is just as damaging to the WTS theory. These small clay tablets are spread throughout EACH and EVERY year of the entire documented period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Nabonidus, Cyrus, etc. They even exist for EACH and EVERY year for the short reign of the two kings in those 6 years where the WTS needs to place the 20-year gap. NOT PRESENTED YET: There are business tablets for EVERY year of the known reigns of EACH king, and sometimes thousands of tablets for some of those years, but still absolutely NONE to show evidence for any of the theorized gap of 20 years. (Out of say 50,000 existing tablets, we should therefore expect about 20,000 additional tablets to cover those years, yet not one of those "20,000" missing tablets has shown up. (The WTS has proposed that evidence may exist but has just not been discovered yet.) Therefore, while 100% of the tablet evidence supports the known chronology, there is still ZERO tablet evidence for any possible longer reigns or additional reigns for anyone during the period. Worse yet for the WTS theory, there are even connecting tablets that give us the transition between each king and the next king which makes the gap theory impossible, according to all the evidence. NOT PRESENTED YET: There is even a subset of these business documents all related to the same "banking institution" that provides a separate chronology of transitioning "bank presidents" throughout the same entire period. They provide the exact same connected, relative chronology as the Babylonian king lists, the astronomy tablets, the official Babylonian chronicles, and other inscriptions. NOT PRESENTED YET: The WTS admits that the Babylonians were able to predict eclipses based on various nearly-18-year lunar cycles. If they weren't using an extremely accurate calendar they couldn't have done this. Any currently undocumented gap in the chronology would have completely thrown off their ability to predict eclipses. To add "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS quotes from experts about evidence from astronomy and inscriptions and often adds (with no explanation) the WTS chronology in parentheses or brackets in very close context to the quotations from experts and scholarly references and encyclopedias. Sometimes even adding the bracketed WTS chronology within the quotation marks from the expert sources, giving the impression that there is expert scholarly support for WTS chronology. To add further "support" for the 20-year gap, the ACTUAL evidence that has been consistently supported and presented for the last 150 plus years by HUNDREDS of other scholars, is often simply called to "Carl Olof Jonsson's evidence" or "COJ's evidence." Because COJ was disfellowshipped for presenting the evidence already supported by hundreds of others, it "cleverly" leads the average JW to believe that SECULAR evidence is apostate evidence. (Except when the WTS uses the same set of evidence for 539.)  To add further "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS made use of Rolf Furuli's book in two articles in the Watchtower in 2011  (*** w11 11/1 p. 25) claiming that some of the lunar data on a tablet dated to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is a better fit for a different year of his reign, 20 years earlier. (Same idea had been tried for a different reign in a 1969 Watchtower, *** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186) Furuli's ideas about this tablet and the WTS focus on it has tended to imply to that this tablet (VAT 4956) is somehow all-important to the secular chronology. But it is only one piece of many that consistently point EXACTLY to the 587 date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar and EXACTLY to the 586 date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. NOT PRESENTED YET: Furuli's ideas about the tablet have been thoroughly debunked and shown to contain numerous amateurish errors. Furthermore the book inadvertently contains evidence against itself which indicates the real strength of the evidence against the WTS use of "607." Russell did not directly use the 7 times of Daniel 4 to prove 606 (now 607) and indicated that methods using the 7 times (based more on Leviticus, not Daniel) were inferior methods to the use of "God's dates" (meaning counting forward 40 years from 1874). The use of (and definition of) what happened in 1914 changed after 1914, and the predicted fulfillments were moved to 1915, then 1918, then 1925. The Watchtower even temporarily used the expression "End of the Gentile Times in 1915." After the slippage and failures of expectations, the only useful prediction that remained was that the "Gentile Times Ended in 1914." But this was not about Jesus' invisible parousia (still 1874) or Jesus' invisible enthronement as King (still 1878) but was an expression directly related to the visible Zionist movement in Palestine. After an adjusted emphasis on Zionism AFTER 1914, along with a new emphasis on on Jesus' coming/arriving/returning to his temple for judgment in 1918, Rutherford finally dropped the Zionist connection to the "End of the Gentile Times" around 1929, and 1874/1878 was also soon dropped so that both the parousia and the kingship both were now associated with 1914. And the Gentile nations merely lost their "lease" to rule, even though they were now ruling more powerfully than ever.

No, Georgie, you are making up false premises entirely from your own imagination.
… as you habitually do multiple times in almost every one of your posts. 
Read over your last six or eight posts.
Or better still … “get out of the basement more”. 
As with everyone, too soon you will be DEAD, and none of this will matter …. or even be remembered.
It does not matter.

That is precisely why I continue to stay connected to Pudgy. I am genuinely fascinated by witnessing your irrational and delusional thoughts, as well as those of Srecko, your puppet. I sincerely hope that, before you pass away, you will have a moment of enlightenment that will bring meaning to your otherwise pitiable existence.

You have been proven to be an irrational liar. It is you who has disproven JWI's claims.
Once again, demonstrate that God's mentioned chronology is an idol while maintaining consistency with your beliefs.

You haven't proven anything against JWInsider.
We have only proven that the WTJWorg chronology is not a "sacred cow" or "sacred calf" aka idol.
I say that WTJWorg created an "idol". It's an "idol" that JWInsider doesn't want to worship, unlike you (and many others) who do. Are the letters blurry?

It’s THAT SIMPLE!

I think it's better to laugh than share downvotes. lol
 

Unlike you, JWInsider arrives at the date by researching and reviewing the existing WTJWorg chronology.
If he is wrong, then it does not prove anything against him, except that he was wrong.
With WTJWorg, it's a completely different story. They claim that they know better than everyone else because they are allegedly "led by HS". They created a dogma and specific "idol" out of chronology. If you don't believe in the "idol" then you will be excommunicated. lol

The day you start to think, respond to my post intellectually. I grow weary of irrational thoughts that include the twisting of words, like Pudgy, and JWI. Once again, the emphasis is on child play.
If we adopt this perspective, you inadvertently undermine JWI's argument regarding 587 BC, as there is no mention of it in scripture either. Consequently, his "upvote" is in direct conflict with his own post. An observation that shouldn't be overlooked by witnesses looking at this nonsense.

There is no biblical statement that anything happened in 607 BCE or 1914 CE. Go to search tool and you will not find any of this dates (numbers) in the Bible. That is my evidence.
Your evidence comes from the calculation of the biblical text. So you have no proof, just an interpretation.
lol

…

There is no biblical statement that anything happened in 607 BCE or 1914 CE. Go to search tool and you will not find any of this dates (numbers) in the Bible. That is my evidence.
Your evidence comes from the calculation of the biblical text. So you have no proof, just an interpretation.
lol

When you see giant golden arrows embedded in burning military equipment globally ….
text me.
 

It is fascinating to explore the functioning of the mind when confronted with a seemingly irrational notion. The idea of trampling on the heavenly Jerusalem, Srecko, may seem nonsensical indeed. However, it raises intriguing questions about how mere mortals could potentially bring about its destruction. What is particularly captivating is the assumption that you have become a deity, with the power to bring about such an event. Yet, it leaves me pondering what makes you believe that a higher power, like God, wouldn't eventually eliminate all false gods.
When making a claim, it is important to support it with scripture. This principle applies to any claim, not just religious ones. However, there seems to be an issue here where people often make false assumptions without providing any evidence. The burden of proof does not lie with the other person; it is your responsibility to prove your claim. If you disagree with the dates of 1914 and 607, then make a compelling case supported by scripture and historical events to challenge those dates. Otherwise, all you are doing is demonstrating dishonesty and deceit.
Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 3:12, Revelation 3:12. 

While this is sometimes true, there has been a lot of leeway given to what is considered "academic use" in terms of discussion forums. Especially if we are commenting on the contents. The Watchtower Society, for example, has both won and lost in different cases attempting to keep people from posting and/or discussing copyrighted content.
I think you are aware, however, that it neglects the author's rights even more to post their work without attribution, or to post it in such a way that it makes it appear the author said something they didn't. And this happens more often when the poster assumes something about the contents, but doesn't try to comment on the actual contents or the context. 
And then the Gentile British Empire up until about 1947. You can read in old Watchtowers that Rutherford thought Britain was the "disgusting thing standing where it ought not" because they were standing on soil intended for Zionists.

I'll gladly take the challenge. See if you (or anyone you know) can prove that the Jews were liberated from Palestine in 1914. Done.
For good measure, also see if you (or anyone you know) can prove that no Jew "fell by the edge of the sword" at the behest of any nation after 1914. 
Decades prior to WW 1, Russell said that 1914 would be bringing an END to the time of trouble not the beginning. It was printed in Studies in the Scriptures and in the Watchtower magazine.
*** "Can it be Delayed Until 1914?", Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894. ***
We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble.
So he predicted the OPPOSITE of World War! What kind of World War is the END of a time of trouble and not the BEGINNING of a time of trouble?
And that mistaken prediction was only 20 years prior to 1914, not 40. It wasn't until the big prophetic errors that Russell made around 1904, 10 years prior, that Russell also decided the entire harvest period would need to be a complete 40 years of relative peace from 1874 to 1914 to preach the gospel, and THEN the world's institutions and all kingdoms would collapse in October 1914 or within a few months afterwards. 
Of course, Rutherford moved that 40-year "harvest' that was once 1874 to 1914, and moved it to 1878 to 1918.
*** "The Concluding Work of the Harvest", The Watch Tower, October 1, 1917, pg 6148-6149. ***
"and the evidence is very conclusive that it is true, then we have only a few months in which to labor before the great night settles down when no man can work."
*** The Finished Mystery. Studies in the Scriptures. Vol. 7: International Bible Students Association. 1917 ***
In one short year, 1917–1918, the vast and complicated system of sectarianism reaches its zenith of power, only to be suddenly dashed into oblivion . . . . One large part of the adherents of ecclesiasticism will die from pestilence and famine.

I don't know what you mean. Dr. Wiseman didn't say he was confused did he?
Yes. Of course it's true that mistakes pointed out in "past claims by scholars" should discredit the credibility of those scholars who made those past claims. That's always true that mistakes can discredit credibility, but not always.
Your question is more likely asking about when current scholars point out mistakes from the past. In that case, does it discredit the credibility of those current scholars when pointing out those past mistakes by others (such as scribes from 2,500 years ago, or even other scholars from 10 to 1,000 years ago). And if that's the question then it does not necessarily discredit their own credibility, unless of course, they are pointing out irrelevant mistakes needlessly, or especially if they are merely replacing those past mistakes with their own current mistakes.
But I don't see Dr Wiseman doing anything wrong here, and he does not claim there were any scribal mistakes in this context. He does mention some mistakes made by some past scholars but nothing substantial to this discussion. 
So my take on this is: Always question, always be skeptical and verify as best we can. Never trust our own understanding either. All of us can be wrong. All of us fall short. The purpose of discussion is to look for ways in which I might be wrong so that I can correct my wrong opinions.
Yes. Of course, see how that works out for you!! LOL. Only trust illogical unstrustworthy non-scholars, if you wish. LOL. 
In reality, you should not put TOO much trust in either non-scholars or scholars either. Evidence that you can see for yourself should be looked at and validated yourself as much as possible. A lot of evidence that people think is too difficult to check out for themselves is extremely simple and we have nothing to be afraid of. As Watchtower publications have long suggested for other contexts:
*** tr chap. 2 p. 13 par. 5 ***
We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any . . .  are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. 
 

Thanks again for the soapbox setup regarding 1914. LOL.
Scripture says no one knows the day and the hour or the times and the seasons of Jesus' return. "For you do not know when the time will come." Also, scripture says that it wasn't for us to know and that we would need to stay on the watch for his return, by being always ready even for a completely unexpected visitation, like a thief in the night, not waiting for signs. Thieves in the night do not put up signs announcing their visit.
So the only proper way to keep on the watch is to always be prepared, watch our conduct, have faith. Thinking there might be an advance sign keeps people from being fully prepared until they see the sign. Christians need to be prepared BEFORE the sign appear. As Jesus said, when it is too late to even go back into your house to grab something, "THEN the sign will appear --IN HEAVEN!!"
But first a defense for anyone who might be interested in the topic just for the sake of knowledge.
Some people like puzzles. Some people like history. Most of the heavy lifting and most of the very detailed and tedious work has been done by hundreds, even thousands of people who had never heard of 1914. Many of the Greek historians who wanted to make a history of say, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Troy, Peloponnesia, or Alexander the Great also wanted to see just how exactly they could puzzle together the number of years between certain events, exactly how long ago something happened.
Just saying "Year 10 of King so-and-so" wasn't good enough if that king was so far back in time that you weren't sure if your "Kings List" or "archon list" was complete or accurate enough. If there was even one inaccurate listing or missing king from the list then the chain of accuracy was broken. Longer eras were tried. Attaching events to a certain numbered 4-year Olympiad was tried. Ptolemy and others realized that you could go back into Babylonian and Assyrian times and double-check their Kings Lists against actual astronomical readings that he could double-check against repeating cycles of eclipses and even repeated planetary motion against certain constellations. It was fortunate that the Babylonians had astrologers who took such meticulous note of such things. After double-checking, it turned out he could trust the Babylonian Kings Lists, just like today where the Watchtower trusts the same Kings List that Ptolemy quoted, in order to say that Cyrus in 539 is a trusted, anchored, pivotal date.
Full disclosure, the WTS only trusts the list from Cyrus on, NOT BEFORE. And there's also one place where the WTs doesn't like it again AFTER Cyrus, during the reign of Artaxerxes:
*** it-1 p. 182 Artaxerxes ***
Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son of Xerxes I, is the king referred to at Ezra 7:1-28 and Nehemiah 2:1-18; 13:6. Whereas most reference works give his accession year as 465 B.C.E., there is sound reason for placing it in 475 B.C.E.
The "sound reason" is again (just like for 607 from 587 BCE) a prophetic interpretation that we would like to have work a certain way, and the Watchtower interpretation doesn't work with the evidenced chronology.
 
But even today, many people will get angry if you say that the Civil War started in 1841 or that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1756, or that, nearly half-way around the world, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand happened in 1894 or that Lenin's Revolution in Russia was in 1897. Or that Jesus was born around 22 BC. Some people are sticklers for accuracy and don't like false claims even when it really doesn't matter all that much to our own family and pets. 
And for that matter, saying that something happened in 1914 when no one at the time actually noticed whatever it was that happened at the time, also has no real effect on us today. If the Watchtower had claimed that whatever happened invisibly then, had actually happened in 1934, or if we still claimed that it had happened in 1874, there would be no material difference to anything else we believe in. Changing the starting dates, and then adding an undefinable and fairly flexible "overlapping generation" to it, means we don't really even have an expectation that is specifically tied to that year any more.
So the only real point for most Witnesses then, is to be able to brag that the WTS was able to predict that SOMETHING big would happen in 1914. And even though it wasn't anything like what the WTS predicted, no one can deny that SOMETHING big did happen that year. 
So the real point, pretty much the only remaining point, must be for some kind of gnostic bragging rights. Boasting about how our own esoteric and convoluted method of interpreting "hidden knowledge" proves we are about the closest thing to "prophets" that one might expect these days.
This is what Russell apparently had in mind in the first thing he ever published back before he started the Watchtower magazine. In 1876 he said regarding 1914:
We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. . . . But, some one will say, “If the Lord intended that we should know, He would have told us plainly and distinctly how long.” But, no, brethren, He never does so. The Bible is to be a light to God’s children;–to the world, foolishness. Many of its writings are solely for our edification upon whom the ends of the world are come. As well say that God should have put the gold on top instead of in the bowels of the earth it would be too common; it would lose much of its value. So with truth; but, “to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom."
In fact, look what was added to the Aid book and Insight book which were supposed to be all-purpose, general-use Bible Dictionaries. Even though the predictions about 1914 turned out not to be true, and even though a sensationalist newspaper at the time made a story that falsely misrepresented those predictions, the Insight book provides the following bit of boasting:
*** it-1 p. 135 Appointed Times of the Nations ***
“Seven times,” according to this count, would equal 2,520 days. That a specific number of days may be used in the Bible record to represent prophetically an equivalent number of years can be seen by reading the accounts at Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. Only by applying the formula there expressed of “a day for a year” to the “seven times” of this prophecy can the vision of Daniel chapter 4 have significant fulfillment beyond the day of now extinct Nebuchadnezzar, as the evidence thus far presented gives reason to expect. They therefore represent 2,520 years.
It is a historical fact worth noting that, on the basis of the points and evidence above presented, the March 1880 edition of the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations” (and the end of the lease of power granted the Gentile rulers). This was some 34 years before the arrival of that year and the momentous events it initiated. In the August 30, 1914, edition of The World, a leading New York newspaper at that time, a feature article in the paper’s Sunday magazine section commented on this as follows: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”
 
So it has really just become a roundabout way of bragging and hinting at least subliminally that the WTS is a kind of "prophet:"
(Amos 3:7) . . .For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing Unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.

To me, this is not a math problem, this is a perception problem.
I made my living doing calculations for 40 years, but it was always an adjunct to proving something that existed or would exist in the real world. Train tracks that lined up, bridges that didn’t collapse, sewers that would not overflow, refineries that worked efficiently, and sites that drained properly etc. etc.
I have argued with other engineers about how much precision was necessary in calculations, as I always used six decimal places, to avoid creeping truncation errors, but the calculation was NOT THE END PRODUCT.  The End Product was something important in the REAL world.
So …. what’s important about one or two or 20 or 70 years …2600 or so years ago, on the other side of the planet, by peoples and nations … whole civilizations that don’t exist anymore?
It is perceived that this is important because when you add up a whole bunch of numbers it either succeeds or fails in getting you to 1914, which without the slightest infinitesimal shred of REAL evidence is when Christ established his Kingdom … or something along those lines. It’s hard to keep up ‘cause the goalposts are constantly being moved.
100.000000% of hard facts say WWI, the “Great War” was a 1914 coincidence.
Looking at real evidence, NOTHING supports the idea that Armageddon occurred, and Christ established ANYTHING in 1914.
if the elements being intensely hot had melted, etc., SOMEONE would have noticed.
The Bible actually describes EXACTLY what humans would see when Christ returns in Kingdom Power.
The destruction of all competing governments!
                     Armageddon.
Please correct me if you have any evidence Armageddon has already occurred.
Remember evidence?
If your extensive calculations, checked and double checked, PROVE a chicken is spherical …. LOOK AT THE CHICKEN!

If he died in 609 BCE, as Pharaoh Necho was passing north through Megiddo, then he was born around 648 BCE. Josiah became king at 8 years of age in about 640/639 and reigned 31 years until 609.
TMI:
Apparently, Josiah's wife was pregnant with Johanan when Josiah was somewhere between 8 and 12 years old. Johanan never became king, but Josiah's other 3 sons all became kings of Judah. 
His second son, Jehoiakim/Eliakim was born in Josiah's 6th year as king (634 BCE), meaning when Josiah was about 14, so Josiah most likely fathered the child his second son when he was 13. 
When Josiah was about 16 (632 BCE), his third son Jehoahaz/Shallum was born.
About the 22nd year of his reign, Mattaniah/Zedekiah was born, around 618 BCE.
Zedekiah would be about 9 years old when his father died, and very shortly afterwards was himself made king around 609 BCE
It's hard to see why someone being born in 618 might influence a scribe to think his reign concluded 11 years later. You are evidently thinking it's possible that some scribe somewhere mixed up his birth-year with his first year of reign, counting 11 years from the wrong date. This seems a little less likely to me when you think about the method they used for counting years. It wasn't a matter of mixing up numbers like 618, 607, 597, 586, because counting calendar years didn't use numbers like that. You merely added up the length of all official kings' reigns between "king A' and "king B" and then used expression like "in the 3rd year of king A. . . " or in "10th year of king B." to add or subtract for the exact number of years. 
I merely acknowledge that you were saying it was possible that historical evidence points to a different time frame from 587, and you say my assumption is incorrect but then go on to say almost the exact same thing I just said. So I guess I missed what part of my assumption was incorrect.
It sounds like you are not saying that Nabopolassar can also be called Nebuchadnezzar, but that perhaps there was a co-regency of a certain Nebuchadnezzar of the same regnal length as Nabopolassar's or that Nabopolassar's regnal year numbers were used during a time when this Nebuchadnezzar was also a king (or effectively the king from the Biblical perspective?) during that same 19th year.  
There were others named Nebuchadnezzar, especially after the first "great" Nebuchadnezzar from 400 years earlier. The name according to Wiseman was little used elsewhere (if at all) by others in the second millennium, meaning prior to the first Nebuchadnezzar. But he believes that Nabopolassar, once established in his throne, thought it good to name his first son Nebuchadnezzar as a kind of throwback to that first Nebuchadnezzar to remind Babylonians of the old classical "dynasty". But others had used the name, since 'Neb the First' or names similar enough to swap with it. 
The other Nebuchadn(r)ezzar, however, was NOT the son of Nabopolassar as you say. You must have read it wrong. That would mean Nebuchadnezzar had a brother named Nebuchadnezzar. Note that Wiseman says that Nebuchadn(r)ezzar II had a brother named Nabuzerusabsi, named in a document almost NINETY YEARS AFTER the governor of Uruk (also named Nabuzerusabsi). It was that Uruk governor from 650 BC (not 640) who also had a brother named Nebuchadrezzar. 

according to:

which I didn't look up to double-check.
Nabopolassar's son, Nabuzerusabsi, would have been born well before 605 and so was already at least 44 when he was mentioned on a tablet in the year 562 BCE. The brother of the governor of Uruk's back around 650 would have been nearly a century earlier, and this would be, not impossible, but very difficult to see as "a Nebuchadnezzar" co-ruling with Nabopolassar, whose reign started in about 626 BCE. Not because it's impossible based on the dates, but because we have so much trivial information known about even obscure people from these years. Even people who reigned only a few months, even people who tried to usurp the kingship, and even details about co-rulers from Assyrian times just a few years prior to Nabopolassar. So it seems odd that we wouldn't have details about a brother of a governor co-ruling at the time history assigns solely to Nabopolassar. 

It becomes recognizable to me as follows. There are scholars, archaeologists, historians and others involved in looking at historical events and dating them. These are people who independently or within the framework of recognized institutions research the matter and draw conclusions. All such individuals should have, and probably have, diplomas from higher educational institutions, so you can have confidence in their work and expertise.
 
On the other hand, we have "esteemed" researchers whose names we do not know, nor their diplomas, because they work in anonymity as individuals or as unitary teams of a religious community. It is necessary to strongly emphasize the fact that this same religious community, as a non-profit body, strongly appeals before various other "secular bodies", such as courts and other institutions dealing with religious and human freedoms (and the like), appeals for its complete independence when it comes to religious doctrines and interpretations. They refer to their constitutionally guaranteed right that no one, not even the courts, have the right to engage in assessments or judgments as to whether certain theological interpretations are legal or not, right or wrong.
In light of such a context and the claim of "independence in interpreting the biblical text" JWs (read, religious leaders) can, if they want to, say and teach what they like and see fit for their own theological consistency and doctrinal purpose while leading their believers with specifically chosen direction of one's own religious thought.
In other words, this means that any teaching of a religious community, even if it is contrary to official science and and as such recognized by the academic community, cannot be considered  as"wrong", because this right and freedom to "interpretation/s" is guaranteed by constitutional freedoms and charters.

It becomes recognizable to me as follows. There are scholars, archaeologists, historians and others involved in looking at historical events and dating them. These are people who independently or within the framework of recognized institutions research the matter and draw conclusions. All such individuals should have, and probably have, diplomas from higher educational institutions, so you can have confidence in their work and expertise.
 
On the other hand, we have "esteemed" researchers whose names we do not know, nor their diplomas, because they work in anonymity as individuals or as unitary teams of a religious community. It is necessary to strongly emphasize the fact that this same religious community, as a non-profit body, strongly appeals before various other "secular bodies", such as courts and other institutions dealing with religious and human freedoms (and the like), appeals for its complete independence when it comes to religious doctrines and interpretations. They refer to their constitutionally guaranteed right that no one, not even the courts, have the right to engage in assessments or judgments as to whether certain theological interpretations are legal or not, right or wrong.
In light of such a context and the claim of "independence in interpreting the biblical text" JWs (read, religious leaders) can, if they want to, say and teach what they like and see fit for their own theological consistency and doctrinal purpose while leading their believers with specifically chosen direction of one's own religious thought.
In other words, this means that any teaching of a religious community, even if it is contrary to official science and and as such recognized by the academic community, cannot be considered  as"wrong", because this right and freedom to "interpretation/s" is guaranteed by constitutional freedoms and charters.

Srecko, you're quite the comedian, haha! Are you also going to pin the blame on JWs for air pollution and the deterioration of soil on Earth? Don't forget to throw in the depletion of the ocean, and while you're at it, why not accuse the Watchtower of being responsible for all the problems in the universe?
Remember Srecko, while you're busy overthinking, you're part of the problem, not the solution. LOL!

…