Foreigner

Well .... after it is all said and done .... and a million words have been used to say it ... this analogy comes to mind .......
Let's call Biblical Chronology "Fahrenheit" .
Lets call Babylonian Chronology "Centigrade".
If we are talking about temperature ...  20 degrees Centigrade  is EXACTLY 68 degrees Fahrenheit.
Where do we have an EXACT match theologically and secularly?
The CORRECT answer should be able to be explained and stated in ONE sentence.
Backup in the second sentence.
 

Sure. Would a coin that had a date on both sides give you an accurate minting date?
This is exactly why I shouldn’t mean anything that doesn’t have the possibilities of having many alternative endings. However, this statement implies a heavy-handed use of having another view forced to be accepted.
Then with more of a confirmation, scholars view shouldn’t be heightened over one another. The credibility lies with those scholars that can find common ground with scripture, not those that make every attempt to “discredit” scripture.
Let’s look at this illustration with the eyes of Carl Olof Jonsson. Where does it in VAT4956 *pinpoint* the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC in this tablet? Remember his argument is precision. Then, it became a relying point for ex-witnesses. His message was lost when he decided to rearrange scripture to fit secular ideology.
This implies as far as secular chronology has shown, the dates implied for his reign began in 605BC. Does that in itself mean its absolute? Where should the *faith* of a BIBLE STUDENT reside?
If this view is the case, then I hope those that argue against the WT chronology will understand, the Babylonian Chronicle tablets actually “help” to confirm certain pieces of an incomplete puzzle.
Then we can agree that the only cost associated with any presentation is the errors of secular scholars that don’t understand scripture. However, what would be another reason for people to call someone King? Seeing past posts for myself. I believe ALLEN SMITH and ALL those numbering accounts, possibly due to deletion as I suspect, was raised as well.
 
 
 
 
 

That’s understandable. However, what if one side of a coin only showed a face without a date, and the other side did? WouldnÂ’t we have to learn the history of that person on the coin to come to a reasonable conclusion? The United States still uses the images of the founding fathers. Can we guarantee, a 100% certainty with a currency of 1925 versus 1975 if it had no dates of usage? versus the date, it was printed by the mint.
This is why VAT4956 holds little value to the destruction of Jerusalem with the increments of 18-19 years. It works both ways. The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his fatherÂ’s kingdom in 605BC. That in itself doesnÂ’t discredit 607BC since the beginning siege of Jerusalem started by historical reckoning in 589BC. Keep in mind, I'm using terminology outside of the Lunar/Solar calendar.
This is why, as with any historical evidence, it becomes a matter of scholarly, opinion. Meaning, there shouldnÂ’t be more weight placed on the credibility, given by D.J Wiseman or A.K. Grayson by having a different perspective in scholarly chronology than that of a linguist scholar. What counts, how many of these secular observations can we use to agree with scriptures chronology if it has become that important for any one individual to know.
Remember ABC 5 puts the father and son around the Zargos Mountains around 607/8BC. Does that mean Nebuchadnezzar needed to be there for the “destruction of Jerusalem” in 607BC? Scripture tells a different story of how God SENT Judah’s neighboring kingdoms to DESTROY it. But why state “in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time”. Could it be the *scribe* wrote down this evidence years “after” it had occurred? Or is there something that prompted this person to recognize Prince Nebuchadnezzar as a King around that time. History shows, he was made “general” of his own army around 610BC. Also, what is the significance of the ancient cities Haran, and Hamah around 609/10BC? It would imply Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were chasing after their enemies around that time with the end battle of Carchemish in 605BC. So, 605BC was a very busy year for this King. But, how could he roam freely in the Hatti land if he didn’t have *control* over all that land? Meaning, before 605BC.

In a discussion board. Any input is of value. That determines the individuality of society. It appears Allen’s enumeration, could be attributed to the many time HE/SHE has been deleted. Critical historical documentation is of GREAT VALUE. No one has the right to minimize that value, just because of his/her, bias.
If that were the case, there would be no historical value to anything related to antiquity. (I.e. Babylonian Chronicles, VAT4956, etc.) Documentation that we in modern times thrive on, has been exhaustively documented for historical value. So, it should be counterproductive to censor one over another that has possibly continued, unimpeded in this forum for the same circumstance.

Aside from Furuli, perhaps suggesting the clay tablet has been tampered with in modern times? I don’t need VAT4956 to know the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar since the last 18 years of the King were documented as an uneventful time for the king from Herodotus, and Berosos for the entire land of Judah. VAT 4956 at “best” confirms the chronicled “besieged of Jerusalem” in an around the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. At best by secular chronology, they have proven that in the final point of that siege, Nebuchadnezzar ordered the temple destroyed. Why? Who knows, perhaps out of frustration of having to deal with disloyal Judean Kings, and having no further “fear” of the Hebrew God that gave him that Kingdom to begin with? Does that in itself “PROVE” King Nebuchadnezzar was PRESENT at each engagement? NO! It does NOT!! You can’t claim that either with the Babylonian Chronicles. VAT4956 doesn’t have any importance to relate to the substance in the destruction of Jerusalem as Carl Olof Jonsson might imply, or from, ANY ex-witnesses that embellish on a *false” premise for that tablet. Does it mention the 37th year of King Jeconiah captivity? History does.

http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm
Am I attempting to discredit the tablet? not at all. ItÂ’s just another piece of a puzzle. Does it in anyway mention the destruction of Jerusalem BEFORE the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Show me where it claims this extraordinary insight in the tablet!!

Wait, what ...?
Honestly, your whole post is so muddled I don't know what you are trying to argue. 
(Thank you, @JW Insider for responding to the 'tampering' thing, etc.)

That’s understandable. However, what if one side of a coin only showed a face without a date, and the other side did? WouldnÂ’t we have to learn the history of that person on the coin to come to a reasonable conclusion? The United States still uses the images of the founding fathers. Can we guarantee, a 100% certainty with a currency of 1925 versus 1975 if it had no dates of usage? versus the date, it was printed by the mint.
This is why VAT4956 holds little value to the destruction of Jerusalem with the increments of 18-19 years. It works both ways. The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his fatherÂ’s kingdom in 605BC. That in itself doesnÂ’t discredit 607BC since the beginning siege of Jerusalem started by historical reckoning in 589BC. Keep in mind, I'm using terminology outside of the Lunar/Solar calendar.
This is why, as with any historical evidence, it becomes a matter of scholarly, opinion. Meaning, there shouldnÂ’t be more weight placed on the credibility, given by D.J Wiseman or A.K. Grayson by having a different perspective in scholarly chronology than that of a linguist scholar. What counts, how many of these secular observations can we use to agree with scriptures chronology if it has become that important for any one individual to know.
Remember ABC 5 puts the father and son around the Zargos Mountains around 607/8BC. Does that mean Nebuchadnezzar needed to be there for the “destruction of Jerusalem” in 607BC? Scripture tells a different story of how God SENT Judah’s neighboring kingdoms to DESTROY it. But why state “in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time”. Could it be the *scribe* wrote down this evidence years “after” it had occurred? Or is there something that prompted this person to recognize Prince Nebuchadnezzar as a King around that time. History shows, he was made “general” of his own army around 610BC. Also, what is the significance of the ancient cities Haran, and Hamah around 609/10BC? It would imply Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were chasing after their enemies around that time with the end battle of Carchemish in 605BC. So, 605BC was a very busy year for this King. But, how could he roam freely in the Hatti land if he didn’t have *control* over all that land? Meaning, before 605BC.

Aside from Furuli, perhaps suggesting the clay tablet has been tampered with in modern times? I don’t need VAT4956 to know the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar since the last 18 years of the King were documented as an uneventful time for the king from Herodotus, and Berosos for the entire land of Judah. VAT 4956 at “best” confirms the chronicled “besieged of Jerusalem” in an around the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. At best by secular chronology, they have proven that in the final point of that siege, Nebuchadnezzar ordered the temple destroyed. Why? Who knows, perhaps out of frustration of having to deal with disloyal Judean Kings, and having no further “fear” of the Hebrew God that gave him that Kingdom to begin with? Does that in itself “PROVE” King Nebuchadnezzar was PRESENT at each engagement? NO! It does NOT!! You can’t claim that either with the Babylonian Chronicles. VAT4956 doesn’t have any importance to relate to the substance in the destruction of Jerusalem as Carl Olof Jonsson might imply, or from, ANY ex-witnesses that embellish on a *false” premise for that tablet. Does it mention the 37th year of King Jeconiah captivity? History does.

http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm
Am I attempting to discredit the tablet? not at all. ItÂ’s just another piece of a puzzle. Does it in anyway mention the destruction of Jerusalem BEFORE the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Show me where it claims this extraordinary insight in the tablet!!

That’s understandable. However, what if one side of a coin only showed a face without a date, and the other side did? WouldnÂ’t we have to learn the history of that person on the coin to come to a reasonable conclusion? The United States still uses the images of the founding fathers. Can we guarantee, a 100% certainty with a currency of 1925 versus 1975 if it had no dates of usage? versus the date, it was printed by the mint.
This is why VAT4956 holds little value to the destruction of Jerusalem with the increments of 18-19 years. It works both ways. The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his fatherÂ’s kingdom in 605BC. That in itself doesnÂ’t discredit 607BC since the beginning siege of Jerusalem started by historical reckoning in 589BC. Keep in mind, I'm using terminology outside of the Lunar/Solar calendar.
This is why, as with any historical evidence, it becomes a matter of scholarly, opinion. Meaning, there shouldnÂ’t be more weight placed on the credibility, given by D.J Wiseman or A.K. Grayson by having a different perspective in scholarly chronology than that of a linguist scholar. What counts, how many of these secular observations can we use to agree with scriptures chronology if it has become that important for any one individual to know.
Remember ABC 5 puts the father and son around the Zargos Mountains around 607/8BC. Does that mean Nebuchadnezzar needed to be there for the “destruction of Jerusalem” in 607BC? Scripture tells a different story of how God SENT Judah’s neighboring kingdoms to DESTROY it. But why state “in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time”. Could it be the *scribe* wrote down this evidence years “after” it had occurred? Or is there something that prompted this person to recognize Prince Nebuchadnezzar as a King around that time. History shows, he was made “general” of his own army around 610BC. Also, what is the significance of the ancient cities Haran, and Hamah around 609/10BC? It would imply Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were chasing after their enemies around that time with the end battle of Carchemish in 605BC. So, 605BC was a very busy year for this King. But, how could he roam freely in the Hatti land if he didn’t have *control* over all that land? Meaning, before 605BC.

In a discussion board. Any input is of value. That determines the individuality of society. It appears Allen’s enumeration, could be attributed to the many time HE/SHE has been deleted. Critical historical documentation is of GREAT VALUE. No one has the right to minimize that value, just because of his/her, bias.
If that were the case, there would be no historical value to anything related to antiquity. (I.e. Babylonian Chronicles, VAT4956, etc.) Documentation that we in modern times thrive on, has been exhaustively documented for historical value. So, it should be counterproductive to censor one over another that has possibly continued, unimpeded in this forum for the same circumstance.

Aside from Furuli, perhaps suggesting the clay tablet has been tampered with in modern times? I don’t need VAT4956 to know the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar since the last 18 years of the King were documented as an uneventful time for the king from Herodotus, and Berosos for the entire land of Judah. VAT 4956 at “best” confirms the chronicled “besieged of Jerusalem” in an around the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. At best by secular chronology, they have proven that in the final point of that siege, Nebuchadnezzar ordered the temple destroyed. Why? Who knows, perhaps out of frustration of having to deal with disloyal Judean Kings, and having no further “fear” of the Hebrew God that gave him that Kingdom to begin with? Does that in itself “PROVE” King Nebuchadnezzar was PRESENT at each engagement? NO! It does NOT!! You can’t claim that either with the Babylonian Chronicles. VAT4956 doesn’t have any importance to relate to the substance in the destruction of Jerusalem as Carl Olof Jonsson might imply, or from, ANY ex-witnesses that embellish on a *false” premise for that tablet. Does it mention the 37th year of King Jeconiah captivity? History does.

http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm
Am I attempting to discredit the tablet? not at all. ItÂ’s just another piece of a puzzle. Does it in anyway mention the destruction of Jerusalem BEFORE the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Show me where it claims this extraordinary insight in the tablet!!

In a discussion board. Any input is of value. That determines the individuality of society. It appears Allen’s enumeration, could be attributed to the many time HE/SHE has been deleted. Critical historical documentation is of GREAT VALUE. No one has the right to minimize that value, just because of his/her, bias.
If that were the case, there would be no historical value to anything related to antiquity. (I.e. Babylonian Chronicles, VAT4956, etc.) Documentation that we in modern times thrive on, has been exhaustively documented for historical value. So, it should be counterproductive to censor one over another that has possibly continued, unimpeded in this forum for the same circumstance.

Ah well. The smoking gun began smoking two or three concurrent generations before my time. Should I make it into the new system, then I will be living forever and if they try it again I will catch them in the act!

Perhaps. The last time I looked, it has been scrutinized by skeptics since writing became a form of communication. However, I don’t see anywhere in scripture that our *faith* in GOD should be equal to the “faith” in the Babylonian Chronicles. Then, the weight of evidence becomes more in the theories of men than that what is actually written in GodÂ’s INSPIRED word, scripture. Then we can agree that the Babylonian Chronicles tell a story, just NOT a COMPLETE story. It's all in the interpretation, then!

It's there too, of course (in your 4th edition):
Chronicles: Neo-Babylonian, 100-105, 148; nature of, 100; reliability of, 104, 105; BM 21946, 101 (picture), 102, 201-203, 207, 295, 296, 339,340, 342, 343; Nabonidus Chronicle, 102, 103 (with picture); BM 21901, 233; BM 22047, 346 But this sort of begs the whole question about what you have been doing for the last few decades. From what I can see on J-W Discussion, you have apparently made a kind of multi-decade career out of Jonsson-bashing, and yet you don't even know what's in his book? Have you ever read his book? I could quote a dozen other times from J-W Discussion where you talk about how Jonsson fails to do this or that, and now I have to wonder whether any of this has been honest.
That's not true either, of course. At the end of this post I'll add an image from page 254 which includes it among all the most important documented activities of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. A longer discussion of how BM 21946 relates to Nebuchadnezzar's 7/8th yr takes up several paragraphs on page 296. An even longer discussion of the importance of BM 21956 as it relates to his 7/8th yr is on page 342 and 343 of Jonsson's book. Here's a portion of pages 342-3:
Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoiachin is also described in the Babylonian chronicle B.M. 21946. For the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar this chronicle says: From Dec. 598 (or Jan. 597) to March 597 B.C.E.: ”The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king. A king of his own choice he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.”[68] NebuchadnezzarÂ’s army left Babylon “in the month of Kislev,” which was the ninth month, and seized Jehoiachin “on the second day of the month Adar,” that is, the twelfth month.[69] This means that even if the army left Babylon in the beginning of Kislev (which this year began on December 18, 598 B.C.E., Julian calendar), the interval between the day it left Babylon until the city was captured and its king (Jehoiachin) seized, on the second Adar (which corresponded to March 16, 597), was three months at the most.[70] Footnotes: [67] It is interesting to note that in this first deportation Nebuchadnezzar brought only “some” of the vessels from the temple in Jerusalem to Babylon, and these were not even the “valuable” vessels. This strongly supports the conclusion that the siege of Jerusalem at this time did not end up in the capture of the city. If it did, why did he not take the valuable vessels from the temple? If, on the other hand, the siege was raised because Jehoiakim capitulated and paid a tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, it is quite understandable that Jehoiakim did not include the most valuable vessels in the tribute. [68] A. K. Grayson, op. cit., p. 102. The chronicle is in complete agreement with the description of this siege given in the Bible. (2 Kings 24:8–17; 2 Chronicles 36:9–10.) [69] The Babylonians had a second Ululu (an intercalary month) in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, thus making Kislev and Adar the tenth and thirteenth months respectively that year, although they were normally the ninth and twelfth calendar months . This fact does not affect the discussion above. [70] If the Babylonian army left Babylon some time after Jehoiachin had ascended the throne, the siege was of very short duration, two months at most and probably less, as the time the army needed to march from Babylon to Jerusalem has to be subtracted from the three months from Kislev to Adar. Such a march took at least one month. It is possible, however, that a part of the army had left Babylon earlier, as 2 Kings 24:10–11 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem some time after the siege had begun. The reason for the short duration of the siege was JehoiachinÂ’s surrender to Nebuchadnezzar on Adar 2 or March 16, 597 B.C.E., Julian calendar. (2 Kings 24:12) For an excellent discussion of this siege, see William H. Shea, “NebuchadnezzarÂ’s Chronicle and the Date of the Destruction of Lachish III,” in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, No. 111 (1979), pp. 113f. I suspect you are not truly puzzled in the least by his treatment of that point. If you really were you should certainly not try to pass yourself off as any kind of student of chronology. It's the entire Neo-Babylonian period that is now "pivotal" through "absolute" chronological dating. The entire period is known through established, chronometric (calendar) dating. The entire range from Nabopolassar through Cambyses and beyond is considered "absolute" in this sense by chronologists who study this historical period.
Yes, it's true that WT "chronology" places the events of 597 in 617. That's easy to understand though completely outside the context of chronology:
It's because the writers at the WTS created a never-ending problem for themselves by adding 20 years to 587 to get 607 to force it to fit 1914. So they are stuck adding it to every date prior to 607, too. They clearly haven't yet figured out how or when or if they are going to fix the problem. It's no more about real chronology than 1874 was really one of "God's dates, not ours" just because it was claimed to be such in the Watch Tower publications. But remember, the Watchtower kept 1874 on the books for 64 years, until finally it no longer was one of "God's dates, not ours."
That means that for  64 years, 1874 had come from God, and not from any private interpretation:
(2 Peter 1:20,21) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. The Watchtower didn't fix that particular date problem until 1943, just a year after Rutherford died. Now we know it wasn't about real chronology, but it was a private interpretation after all.  Perhaps a hint about why can be found in this quote referencing Rutherford and those who agreed with him.
"We understand . . [a person]. . who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit. . . ."  (g1924, December 17, p.179) Rutherford had a very similar outlook on Russell which kept him from overcoming all of those previously-labeled "God's dates" for many years. That's why the discussion in the May 1922 Watchtower is so interesting in that it points to what Rutherford thinks is at the heart of the chronology problem: it's coming from those who are falling away from the faith they once put in Russell, who had died in 1916. Apparently Fred Franz in 1943 showed he had fallen from the faith he once put in the late Rutherford, who had died in 1942. Apparently, by the late 1970's, many more had fallen away from the faith they had once put in Fred Franz.
The 4th edition of Jonsson's book has been further expanded online, by about 130 pages, and this moves the index, too, but the index is still the original one, and the rest of the book, through page 380 is still exactly the same as the printed 4th edition. The index does not reference the added material.

A little like the Bible. All the manuscripts are later copies by unknown scribes; there is clear evidence in some places of redaction; there are transcription errors and linguistic ambiguities here and there. Maybe we should weigh the Bible on the same scales of skepticism?

Then we can agree that this reference, would be “false* to claim 99.9999% certainty on ancient writings since no one was there to authentic what was “copied” didn’t have readjusted writings to boaster that kingdoms claims? Or for that matter, writing errors due to linguistic incompatibilities.

Then we can agree that this reference, would be “false* to claim 99.9999% certainty on ancient writings since no one was there to authentic what was “copied” didn’t have readjusted writings to boaster that kingdoms claims? Or for that matter, writing errors due to linguistic incompatibilities.

LOL! More of the same by this personal, sentiment.




Are we referring to the revisions *Grayson* admitted were mistakes? Or is this an attempt to hide the truth? Isaiah 29:15, 2 Corinthians 4:2

 
This opinion insinuates you were there to know the scribe (he didn’t) make any mistakes or received secondhand information for historical prosperity. However, was the VAT4956 tablet “tested” with carbon dating to know the proximate date the tablet was made? How about the Babylonian Chronicle, Tablets. Were they carbon dated?

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.

Let's get things back to perspective. You're making several assertions that are NOT by my comments. I'm no longer looking at the author's reasoning, but rather the dates set before secular history, and how VAT4956 agrees with any post-ideology.

Then your observation would be a provocative one just like ANN’s. You are supporting your conclusion from another source of the same author. Your opinion is based on the author’s book: The Fourth Day: Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate, while Foreigner’s question is on the same author’s book: Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate (2nd Ed.)


 
The author is not looking at VAT4956 on the posted question, by foreigner. Then, the author’s opinion runs independently from you’re observation. The author then makes a calculation for VAT4956 that would be “separate” from that theory. I believe, we all know where secular history stands with VAT4956, but that’s not what the author implies in the first title of the book posted. Meaning, making an observation from 605BC minus the 19 years to conclude in 586BC. Now, isn't 604/5BC and 586/7BC standard dates?

Then I would have to ask the same question the poster, (Foreigner) made. These pages show a preference not associated with his earlier claim of 605BC-586BC.

The author doesn’t seem to link the two. However, you are correct. VAT4956 is not that important, unless the research being made, considers 568BC to 587BC while excluding 567-586BC. Then, the dilemma for secular chronology continues.

That's the first time I've ever heard of anyone supposing those are two different alternative dates for VAT4956. Rolf Furuli, for example, wrote a book that claimed that VAT4956 could refer to both 587 AND 588 for its lunar observations, but admits that it clearly refers to both 568 AND 567 for the other astronomical observations.
No one I have ever heard of thinks that VAT 4956 is supposed to be read to coincide with 587 instead of 588.
LOL. You seem to be having a lot of fun. Let's review: Your claim was this from your quote repeated here:
I claimed that you were correct, in that everyone is entitled to apply whatever standards they wish. But if anyone wants to publish their reasons or try to convince others with their evidence, then they SHOULD be willing to have it scrutinized. You just said they should be entitled to NOT have it scrutinized. I disagree. For example:
you should have the right to scrutinize what I say you should have the right to scrutinize what Grayson says you should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says you should have the right to scrutinize what the Watchtower says Furuli should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says Darren Thompson should have the right to scrutinize what Furuli says I should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says The Watchtower should have the right to scrutinize what Ptolemy says I agree with this, and I think most Witnesses are trained to agree with it. Even though you say you don't, I think even you agree with it. So I had to wonder why you were indicating that this author apparently had a right NOT to be scrutinized. Surely everyone, published or not, is entitled to their opinion about someone else's published work. 
Exactly. It seemed you were the only one who thought that was even a question, however, based on your odd claim that a particular author should not be scrutinized. At least we can now see you don't really believe it. For me, however, that whole diversion about "opinion and scrutiny"just seemed like a contrived red herring, because the question I was addressing was what you asked Ann about the relevance of VAT4956.