Malum Intellectus

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!!

I've had my own comments disallowed specifically for discussing moderation policy, which is often a sensitive subject for moderators. And some for engaging with a poster who appears bent on spamming his or her own blog address, and I'm inadvertently helping them out by discussing their blog.
And of course, that might mean that this very response won't last long. But I bring it up anyway because it was in this very thread where @allensmith28 (##?) was minding his own business and got an earful from @tromboneck. (I say, "earful" because it had somethng to do with a corn cob, if I remember correctly.) So, allen was actually the one being "protected" by the moderators. Not that allen needs protecting -- he can handle himself -- and not that tromboneck had really pushed the envelope as far as others have, either. Moderation can never be totally fair, and this is one of the reasons that I often wish it had never been used. When the topic of a discussion forum takes a turn toward the totally absurd, as this one nearly had, it often just means that some people are just too tired or too uncomfortable to deal with it seriously. Silliness sometimes sends a serious message.

The Babylonian Chronicles do not tell the whole story - that is true. But we were talking about an astronomical diary, weren't we? You seem to have confused two categories of texts. You were casting doubt on the diary's trustworthiness because "no one was there to authentic[ate] what was 'copied'" and because of some errors and "linguistic incompatibilities" (whatever that means). The same criticisms could be (and are) levelled at Bible texts. But surely, ancient writings should be taken on their merits and cross-checked with other contemporary writings. The fact remains that the astronomical data on VAT 4956 are representative of celestial observations made in 568-7 BCE. This isn't about subjective theological interpretation; nor is it about incomplete historical narratives or how a nation's history is spun; this is data that can be scientifically verified. 

.
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. 
 

Now you’re confusing me. What would the revision of VAT 4956 from 568/7 to 364 have to do with the timeline in question? That wasn’t adjusted.

Scholar JW
What do you think of this:
Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate 2006 (2nd Ed.) p.35

King Nebuchadnezzar (actually known as Nebuchadnezzar II by historians) of Babylon and the events that surround him will lay the foundation for the discussion in this chapter. King Nebuchadnezzar's rise to power is quite amazing. Nabopolasser, his father, had successfully conquered Assyria and obliterated Nineveh the Assyrian capital. Shortly thereafter Nebuchadnezzar had successfully beaten back Egypt as a general* in his father's military and controlled Syria and Phoenicia after that victory. Consequently Judah became a vassal nation to Babylon at that time. Three years later, King Jehoiakim of Judah aligned himself with Egypt because Egypt had been able to rise up against Nebuchadnezzar during this period. Nebuchadnezzar then besieged Jerusalem in that year to put down Jehoiakim's rebellion (he later defeated Egypt for a second time). Nebuchadnezzar captured King Jehoiakim and took him to Babylon. This marked the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon. Jehoiakim remained the king of Judah for eight more years living in Babylon until his death. Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, then reigned for three months as king of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar then took Jehoiachin prisoner and sent him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar then made Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, king of Judah and Zedekiah reigned for eleven more years. Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar was captured while Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in the 19th year of his reign (see Jeremiah 52:12).

It is important to understand what historians believe to be true about history at the time of Babylonian Captivity before we analyze what the Bible has to say. Most Biblical chronologists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar occurred in the year 586 B.C. This time is partially based on tracing the reigns of the kings of the Persian and Babylonian empires as outlined in Ptolemy's book Almagest. The Almagest was written to describe a mathematical model for predicting the motion of heavenly bodies. This book documented eclipses that occurred during the reigns of Babylonian and Persian kings that Ptolemy used to demonstrate his model. Therefore Almagest was not so much a history book as it was a book on mathematics. Also, Ptolemy was not regarded as an expert on history, if anything he was known as a reputable mathematician and astronomer. The Almagest presents the reigns of the Babylonian and Persian kings without assuming any co-regencies (that is to say, none of the kings' reigns overlapped each other), as follows:

 

There are a few other related subjects to the 607 date that we should not ignore. One is that the synchronisms  with Egyptian chronology create no conflict when tied to Assyrian and Babylonian chronology and true, sensible "Bible chronology." Yet when tied to the changes that the Watchtower Society has made to so-called "Bible chronology" in order for 1914 to work, not surprisingly, the synchronisms are all out of joint again. 
Here's a quick example:
(2 Kings 23:31-24:1) . . .Je·hoʹa·haz was 23 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem.. . .  33 Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh imprisoned him at Ribʹlah in the land of Haʹmath, to keep him from reigning in Jerusalem, and then imposed on the land a fine of 100 silver talents and a gold talent. 34 Furthermore, Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh made Jo·siʹah’s son E·liʹa·kim king in place of his father Jo·siʹah and changed his name to Je·hoiʹa·kim; but he took Je·hoʹa·haz and brought him to Egypt, where he eventually died. 35 Je·hoiʹa·kim gave the silver and the gold to Pharʹaoh, but he had to tax the land to give the silver that Pharʹaoh demanded. He exacted an assessed amount of silver and gold from each of the people of the land to give to Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh. 36 Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ze·biʹdah the daughter of Pe·daiʹah from Ruʹmah. 37 He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his forefathers had done. 24 In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. . . . Pharaoh Nechoh can only be Pharaoh Necho II who reigned from 610 to 595 BC between the reigns of Necho I (672-664) Psamtik I (664-610) and Psamtik II (595-589) all from Egypt's 26th dynasty. (Psamtik is Psammetichus, below)
The work "The Present State of Egyptian Chronology" by William A Ward says the following, related to the chronology of the 26th dynasty:
The chronology of the New Kingdom has the advantage of much more Egyptian documentation, clear historical synchronisms with Western Asia, and it can be attached almost directly to the better established absolute chronology of the first millennium B.C.E. . . . For the New Kingdom, chronologists usually begin with the more verifiable dates of the late period. Psammetichus I, founder of the 26th Dy nasty, began his reign in 664 B.C.E.; Taharqa, last ruler of the 25th Dynasty, ruled from 690 to 664 B.C.E.; . . . These dates are well nigh universally accepted and can all be ascertained by synchronisms with Assyrian kings, . . . So, if it is correct that Egyptian chronology syncs with Assyrian/Neo-Babylonian chronology, then Pharoah Necho ruled from 610 to 595. We know from the Bible that he made Jehoiakim the king, who ruled for 11 years in Jerusalem, then Jehoiakim must have ruled starting in 599. (This was at least 10 years before the final destruction of Jerusalem. So we already know that 607 is wrong by almost 20 years.)
Then we know that Jehoiachin reigned next for 3 months before the Nebuchadnezzar desolated the city in the 8th year of his reign:
(2 Kings 24:8-12) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ne·hushʹta the daughter of El·naʹthan of Jerusalem. 9 He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his father had done. 10 During that time the servants of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city came under siege. 11 King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to the city while his servants were laying siege to it. 12 King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign. So from the reference to Necho we can see that the "deportation to Babylon" (Matthew 1:11) took place between 599 (599 at the earliest and 584 at the latest). If Nebuchadnezzar's first year was 605 BCE, then by the reckoning of years in 2 Kings, his 8th year would be about 597. 597 is a perfect fit for the reign of Necho II who ruled from 610 to 595. It's also a perfect fit to the Babylonian Chronicles which mention it. (Keep in mind that this is the first major capture of Jerusalem about 11 years prior to it's complete burning and destruction in 587/6.) Whether it was 597 or 596 is also discussed in the following Wikipedia reference:
--------[remainder of post is the reference from Wikipedia article: "Siege of Jerusalem"] -------
Nebuchadnezzar soon dealt with these rebellions. According to the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle,[3] he laid siege to Jerusalem, which eventually fell on 2 Adar (March 16) 597 BC. The Chronicle states:
. . .  Nebuchadnezzar installed Jeconiah's uncle, Zedekiah as puppet-king of Judah, and Jeconiah was compelled to remain in Babylon.[10] The start of Zedekiah's reign has been variously dated within a few weeks before,[11] or after[12][13] the start of Nisan 597 BC.
The Babylonian Chronicles, which were published by Donald Wiseman in 1956, establish that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BC.[14] Before Wiseman's publication, E. R. Thiele had determined from the biblical texts that Nebuchadnezzar's initial capture of Jerusalem occurred in the spring of 597 BC,[15] but other scholars, including William F. Albright, more frequently dated the event to 598 BC.[16]
------------- end of quote from Wikipedia --------------

Scholar JW

I believe we can start the criticism of time chronology just a little earlier than Max Hatton with AARON NYMAN. I can also see where others doing research would come across such evidence to attempt to disprove the WT Chronology.

THE PROPHETIC MESSAGE OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF PASTOR C. T. RUSSELL IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY AND BIBLE KNOWLEDGE

Those who have written on this subject have begun their calculations at various times: B. C. 536, 519, 457, 454 and 444.The Adventists say that it is "one" message, thereby meaning that the beginning can be anywhere between B. C. 536 and 444. There is a difference of 92 years between 536 and 444. The word of the Lord says that the seventy weeks shall begin at the time the commandment of the restoration of Jerusalem went forth, not from those "times." The time of the angel cannot be counted from more than one starting point. Therefore only one can be right of those who have started from five various points.

But, you are correct. Rodger C. Young fairs no better with bible understanding than those other critics of the WT Chronology.

As we can read, even encyclopedia’s like Britannica is vague in its interpretation of events with this “the forced detention of Jews in Babylonia following the latter’s conquest” Are they referring to the first encounter King Jehoiakim’s of Judah had with Nebuchadnezzar? Even if the stipulation was with the secular chronology of 605 BC, the WT chronology would only be off 2 years. If the same stipulation is made to the end of the desolation period, then the WT chronology would be off 1 year. A total of 3 years by secular reckoning.

As in everything. It boils down to interpretation. Those 3 years can be explained. Even if we use Furuli’s account that Nebuchadnezzar reign started in 625 BC? It has certain attainable elements through past writings.

Babylonian Exile, also called Babylonian Captivity, the forced detention of Jews in Babylonia following the latter’s conquest of the kingdom of Judah in 598/7 and 587/6 bce. The exile formally ended in 538 bce, when the Persian conqueror of Babylonia, Cyrus the Great, gave the Jews permission to return to Palestine. Historians agree that several deportations took place (each the result of uprisings in Palestine), that not all Jews were forced to leave their homeland, that returning Jews left Babylonia at various times, and that some Jews chose to remain in Babylonia—thus constituting the first of numerous Jewish communities living permanently in the Diaspora.

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).

Foreigner
The sources that you list a part of a Chronologist's toolkit and were and continue to be used by WT scholars and all other scholars who wish to interpret or construct a scheme of Chronology which Thiele and Mc Fall.
scholar JW

Correct. I’m basing myself on the calendar year as ascribed by the ancients. to 610/609 BCE
Rightfully so. There were other sources other than Max Hatton that could have contributed to sound research.
SAOC 24. Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein 1942
CHRONICLES OF CHALDAEAN KINGS D.J. Wiseman 1956
For the works of Edwin R. Thiele, you would certainly consider Leslie McFall, which also gave an opinion on the BOOK: Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75
Therefore, any references to a subject, even if it was difficult to acquire? It could have been obtained.

J W Insider
Thiele's scholarship on the Divided Monarchy is weakened by the simple fact that he overlooked the 70 years or believed that this period had no bearing on his thesis. This is my personal opinion of matters. Common sense would dictate that if you are trying to harmonize the regnal years of the Divided Monarchy both in the case of Israel and then Judah any historic period that was synchronized to any of  the reigns of the Monarchy and NB Chronology would be very important..
The 70 years of Tyre come within the scope or province of Jer. 25:9,11, 22. For Tyre the 70 years represented a undetermined period of  domination or servitude to Babylon as also prophesied by Isaiah in ch. 23.
Edwin Thiele is regarded by Christendom's Chronologists as the Chronologist par excellence . However, what is embarrassing for critics of WT Chronology is that they do not know the precise year that Jerusalem was destroyed whether it 586, the Thielean sate or 587 BCE which is the preferred of apostates following on the heels of Carl Jonsson and others of his ilk. In contrast WT Chronologists have thoughtfully determined 607 BCE as the precise date for that epochal event. 
scholar JW

?
Josiah became king of Judah at the age of eight, after the assassination of his father, King Amon, and reigned for thirty-one years, from 641/640 to 610/609 BCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah


This would be a matter of interpretation just like the first part. However, my statement included the phrase “I don’t doubt” which can lead to scrutiny.


Scholar JW

Rightfully so. However, I find it, coincidental that none of the previously published treatises would, not have been available or known to others. Especially, when that research is part of a subject matter.

I did not follow the conversation from the beginning so I'm not sure of the purpose of this discussion.
From personal experience I know that this date is often mentioned to corroborate or invalidate an alleged calculation of the "seven times" of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. If this is the final purpose of this discussion, then I believe that there are much more important questions.
If the purpose of this discussion is a "historical curiosity", then it is interesting.
If I were a historian, then it would be very important to understand how and where to place the events; study the evidence in favor and the contrary evidence.
As for our beliefs, however, I believe that a Christian should ask himself a more profound and important question.
The Bible book of Daniel, when it spoke of the seven times, refers to the establishment of God's Kingdom?
The question is very simple: what is the use of making a thousand discussions on a historical date if the object of the question is another?
If Daniel chapter 4 is not talking about the establishment of the Kingdom of God but of something else, is it really important to find out an exact date for a wrong event?
Twenty years more or less really do a difference if the interpretation of final event is wrong?
Good reflections to everyone
 

Scholar JW
Correct. 607 BC would be the determined year. After the death of King Josiah. His son took over. Then King Necho ll replaced (Shallum) with Jehoiakim. However. There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC. Then Jehoiakim became the puppet king to Babylon in 609 BC. Scripture relates to what happened next. This is why that period ran concurrently without no accession year attached

Max Hatton wrote a treatise in 1965 or book. Most of what is quoted come from there. I donÂ’t doubt thatÂ’s where Raymond Franz and then Carl Olof Jonsson got their ideas from.

No, that's not true, and that's the problem. The reader is NOT advised. That's a form of academic dishonesty.
Here is one of literally HUNDREDS of examples of this in our literature:
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) You might know better, of course, but don't you think that some of the brothers will read this line in the "Insight" book under "Nebuchadnezzar" and get the impression that a well-researched resource about Babylonian texts indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 588 B.C.E.?
It's amazing (and shameful) that our publications still do this repeatedly. The referenced book by Pritchard is 100% aware that all the evidence consistently points to 568 for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore 587/6 for his 19th year (not 607). There is only one reason that the Watchtower publications sneaks 588 in there without any explanation about how the book they referenced actually rejects this date. It's because 588 is the date that would allow 607 to work which would allow 1914 to work. We should not have to depend on dishonesty and slick tricks like this. If the evidence stood on its own, we would be happy to point to the evidence, instead of trying to denigrate the evidence, and then "dishonestly" forget to tell the readers that it's this same denigrated evidence that we rely on for 607.

JW Insider
Max Hatton became a Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventists, he is rather aged now and not sure whether he is still alive. He last resided in Newcastle, NSW and if alive possibly blind. Max Hatton wrote several articles on Chronology which I have in my files and one thing that struck me was his independent dating of the 70 years from normal Adventist orthodoxy. My conclusion was and still is that Scholarship broadly speaking is all at sea when it comes to the seventy years. They do not have a clue!!
scholar JW

JW Insider
The use of Ptolemy comes down as with all other sources to Methodology. Scholars are free to cherry pick facts from sources in order to construct a scheme of Chronology because this is what. they do and explains why there are so many different OT Chronologies right down to the present day. Ptolemy's Canon is of value to the Historian and the Chronologist and should not be ignored but Edwin Thiele had a realistic and honest view about the Canon for he stated "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete listof all of the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available". Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings, 1965, pp.216-7
scholar JW

OK.  -   But  thats  your  opinion  and  wish,  dear @The Librarian     I  really  know,  more  members  like  it  here  with  NOT  so  much  text,  bec. JW  often  have  not  so  much  time,  running   'post a photo'  >>>>>>>>>    In  other  and  special  topics mostly  more  text,  I  know  that !   Ok.  people  can  post  &  comment  so  long  texts  they  want  here   NO  problem !
By  any  difficulties  I  will  come  to  you.  DANKE  -  Agape

@Queen Esther  In post a photo you can include as much text and replies as you want. 
It was the Gallery that is not designed for long articles.
Please don't ever discourage people from discussing topics even if you post them yourself. If you think there is a problem just ask me to take a look.

Maybe they read all....  I don't know it   But I heard on and off,  they not like too much text here by post a photo !  

We not need the many text......  No member has the time to read it 
I said, its ONLY the letter Y !!   bec. this special form we can see in many of HIS  Creations !  The other letters just not relevant for my post,  you understand ?
THANK YOU