JW Insider

I think Eoin has made an excellent conclusion to this matter and I kind of hated to spoil it by agreeing with it. It reminds me of the ultimate conclusion of a discussion of so many of the "immaterial" [vain] material matters that we deal with "under the sun" as discussed in the book of Ecclesiastes:
(Ecclesiastes 7:27-29) 27 “See, this is what I found,” says the congregator. “I investigated one thing after another to reach my conclusion, 28 but what I continually sought, I have not found. ... 29 This alone I have found: The true God made mankind upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”
(Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14) 13 The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole obligation of man. 14 For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.
But it would not be fair to just end it here. The presentation has been too lop-sided. The WTS position has not been presented. Since no one else has really presented it, I will likely post the WTS position next. Perhaps even from the very first time the entire chronology issue was first addressed by the WTS, with a specific discussion of how the 70 years fits in. This will simultaneously present a good idea of the history of the doctrine and how closely we still hold to the same positions and arguments.
 
 
 

Mights and maybes abound in all of this. I also get a feeling that argument is colored by the fact that there are participants who do not want 607 BCE to have significance as strongly as those who do. The spirit shown in the argumentative ripostes on this matter in the forum seem to me to underline the value of Paul's words below:
1 Tim 1:4 "nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith."
2Tim 2:23 "Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights."
I don't believe that Jehovah wants me to base my faith on the fading artifacts and conflicting interpretations of humans grappling with these at best, incomplete records no matter how persuasive they may seem.
I think I'll discard all the crumbling, dusty secular "evidence" for everything, including 539 BCE, interesting though it is. Then I can construct a view based on the word of God alone. If there are some apparently corroborative features in the secular field, then fine. If not, then fine too. That element will not arbitrate on what I believe anyway.
2:Tim 3:16.17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work"

It says that he returned to Babylon in Ululu and he sat on the throne (i.e. the coronation) on Ululu 1st.
There is no attested Ululu II for the year Nab 21/Neb 0 (605 BCE). There had already been an Addaru II 6 months earlier! No need for another intercalary month.
The one that P&D slots into Nab 19 (607 BCE) is an error. The footnote on P&D p. 4 shows it was questionable as the king's name isn't mentioned on the tablet. There are, however, 4 tablets that clearly attest to a second Ululu in Nabopolassar's 18th year.
Indeed.
So what was Allen's point, again, in bringing up this objection about Neb's travel? I've lost track (pun intended).
 
 

It's a bit like saying "the sun has set"

Unfortunately for your claim, the complete texts of Dougherty's books are availalble online. You can start here:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Dougherty%2C%20Raymond%20Philip%2C%201877-1933
You can see from the list at that link that he wrote the book on Nabonidus in 1920, which was his very first work on the subject. You can read the entire book and notice that he has no discussion of chronology. With no explanation, he merely accepts these particular dates for Nabonidus accession year as 555 BC and his 17th year as 538 BC. Except for the brief repetition of these dates in the title and on the first page, he never mentions dates again in the entire book.
Then, after about 10 more years of study and writing he finally, in 1929, writes a book that includes a full discussion of the chronology including the documentary sources and the synchronization of the various lists of kings. He even explicitly mentions that there had recently been many new studies, with new documentation and even (p.1) that "More than five hundred tablets of this type had been published in the last decade." (1920-1929).
That last book of his, the one that finally addresses the chronology question, starts out with these words in the very first sentence of the introduction: "the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C."  There is no more mention of that 538 B.C. date from his first work on Nabonidus, a decade earlier. In fact, he now dates the same period of Nabonidus, not from 555 to 538, but from 556 to 539.
So your attempt to imply that his sureness about the date 539 was somehow weakened by his first, older book seems disingenuous. It would be just like saying that the Watchtower doesn't really teach 1914, just because some of the older Watchtower magazines (from 1913 and early 1914) show that Russell had temporarily dropped 1914 and moved his expectations to 1915.
 

I appreciate all the points you made in your comment. This was surely the same point being made in 2 Peter.
This is the point that I think Allen Smith might not have realized he was making for many Witnesses when he spoke of how "the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it as correct and holy." I think that most Witnesses will avoid doing this out of the fear that it leads to apostasy. But Witnesses who have done what Allen recommends are becoming troubled by how difficult it really is to harmonize it, and we should be concerned about what is happening to them and why. Many are leaving the organization specifically because of these troubles harmonizing these teachings with the Scriptures.
For example:
We say that wicked king Nebuchadnezzar who killed and enslaved God's people pictures the Messianic Kingdom through Jesus Christ. We say that the break in this Gentile pagan's rulership pictured the break in the Jewish non-Gentile rulership. Daniel says the "Tree Dream" was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar's lifetime, and we say it was not fulfilled in his lifetime. We say that the "Gentile Times" ended at a time when the "Gentile Times" apparently became stronger and more troublesome than ever. Jesus said the Gentile Times will begin in the near future after the time he spoke, not that they will begin in the past. (Luke 21:24) . . .Jerusalem [the holy city] will be trampled [underfoot] on by the nations [Gentiles] until the appointed times of the nations [Gentiles] are fulfilled. The only time the Bible ever repeats Jesus expressions in Luke 21:24 about the Gentile Times is in Revelation 11:2,3 when it ties it to a time period of 1,260 days, not 2,520 years. (". . . the nations [Gentiles]. . .will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months . . . 1,260 days. . . .) We say that the eyes of faith saw the unmistakable sign of Christ's presence begin in 1914 when the Watchtower kept saying it was 1874 until about 1930, and didn't officially change the 1874 date until 1943-4. We say the "Kingdom" began in 1914 when the Bible says it began when Jesus sat at God's right hand. We say the generation of anointed that could lift their heads up because they would not pass away until they would see all these things occur has mostly passed away in the 102 years since 1914. Obviously, this could go on and on. But the important thing is that all these contradictions clear up when we accept Jesus words about not being concerned about the times and seasons.

That's pretty easy to answer. You don't seem to put much reliance in the date 539 BCE, that the Watchtower promotes as the accurate, pivotal point. Yet, the older publications even called this an "absolute" date. 587 BCE does NOT supersede all these "variables." It does not supersede them because it is based only on the same lines of evidence for which we base 539 BCE. In fact, it's accuracy is merely a question of finding out what made 539 BCE an accurate, pivotal point. What made it so accurate as to once be called an "absolute date"?
*** w68 5/1 p. 268 par. 20 Understanding Time a Help to True Worshipers ***
20 For calculating Hebrew Scripture dates, the absolute date of October 5 to 6 in the year 539 B.C.E. is essential.
So, it turns out that we don't need any "divine intervention." If we take an interest in what made 539 BCE so accurate, that by itself, turns out to be the same information that makes 587 BCE not MORE accurate, but exactly the SAME in accuracy as the so-called absolute date of 539 BCE. It turns out to also be the same information that indicates the level of inaccuracy of 607 BCE. So if you trust that 539 BCE is accurate, and I understand that you might not, but if you did, then you would see that it's everything the Watchtower ever said about 539 BCE which is the source of evidence to correct 607 BCE.
From that perspective it is the Watchtower publications that are, in effect, declaring 587 BCE as accurate as 539 by pointing us to the types of evidence that make 539 BCE so accurate. The 539 evidence pointed to is the same evidence that makes 607 inaccurate.
No one's knowledge is greater than God's. But as you have also said "the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it as correct and holy."
You are right, and this is the ONLY reason to still be concerned about it. We should see if it harmonizes. It turns out that 607 BCE does NOT harmonize with scripture. It creates contradictions. It just so happens that the sources that make 539 BCE so accurate and absolute ALSO are the sources for the evidence for 587 BCE instead of 607 BCE. And coincidentally, 587 BCE just happens to remove the Bible contradiction that 607 BCE causes. This doesn't mean that 587 BCE is terribly important to me. Our core doctrines work perfectly well without 587 BCE and without 607 BCE.
This is also why in a local congregational setting, I never bring it up. My personal conversations have always been with friends and brothers from Bethel on this subject. I've had Bible studies where we discuss this particular doctrine and I merely say that this is the Watch Tower Society's current view on the subject. I admit that there have been various views on the subject of chronology and that some of the brothers take a very keen interest in these dates. But I add that we don't serve specifically for dates; the important thing is that we realize we are in the last days, that Jesus Christ is enthroned, and we still pray that this Kingdom will come and God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. That should be enough to motivate us to show love and concern for all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
I don't tell anyone else that they should minimize these dates. It's just my own conscience. We've had several Bible studies reach the point of baptism, over a dozen through the years, and only once has a Bible study questioned why I don't emphasize the dates the same way that other brothers do. These views, to me, are not so divergent that they need to interfere with the ministry. To you, it sounds like they are. But that's your own conscience. I have to pay attention to my teaching, you have to pay attention to yours. The main thing is not to misrepresent scripture. We have a wide array of spiritual food, and a wide range of ministries. We are not all obligated to focus on the exact same ministry and teaching as the person next to us.
(1 Corinthians 12:4-11) 4 Now there are different gifts, but there is the same spirit; 5 and there are different ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; 6 and there are different activities, and yet it is the same God who performs them all in everyone. 7 But the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. 8 For to one is given speech of wisdom through the spirit, to another speech of knowledge according to the same spirit, 9 to another faith by the same spirit, . . . 11 But all these operations are performed by the very same spirit, distributing to each one respectively just as it wills.
If I'm not good at accepting 607 BCE, why not just consider it a weakness on my part.
(1 Corinthians 12:22) 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary,
But there is never a reason to use such disagreements to produce divisions and sects in the congregation. But that doesn't mean that we should be silent if we see a problem, and neither can I conscientiously remain silent when a problem such as this one has been brought to my attention.
 

607 or any other calendar date, what is the value in relation to your Christian life? Did any other key bible character use dates to support their acts of faith?
For a true believer, dates are irrelevant. All they (should) care about is their faith and how they show their faith towards others. We do not know the exact date Jesus was born, nor when He died. Yes, the day in the month is mentioned but to point this to a secular calendar date(day, month and year) is hardly possible if at all. It is as JW Insider explained, all dates are secular.
If dates or the method to date events, was so important or essential, the bible would have provided that in a way ALL can understand. But as it stands now, denominations use their acclaimed "insight" on how to date biblical events as a unique selling proposition. To differentiate from other denominations.
Further to this specific item: regardless if one agrees / accepts a certain date (i.e. 607, 587 etc ect), it does not justify the prophecy presumably linked to that date (gentile times, 7 times, 1914). In other words,, for us this dating seem relevant because we are taught that the selected date is the beginning of a prophecy, with its own (secular dates) calculation again. But if there was no such prophecy linked to that date that has any relevance for us living today, then the date would not be of any importance either.
If actually there is no prophecy from God related to the date we are speaking about here, is it fair to say that the whole dating is useless?
In conclusion, I believe true believers are not worried about dates. Only their acts of faith are relevant. Regardless on what date these acts are done.

When this came up elsewhere on jw-archive someone quoted the Watchtower article on Valentine's Day. I won't do that here, but I'm sure you know the information. Valentine's Day is still tied, in name at least, to a "saint." That ties it a little too close for comfort to a religious celebration, no matter how non-religious it is. Anyway, that wasn't even your question, since it was about birthdays. And there is nothing "religious" about birthdays.
I have an old talk outline where celebrating a child's birthday was tied to "creature worship" by giving too much undue attention to the child who had not really accomplished anything more than surviving for another year. Of course, the primary reason we give is that the Bible only mentions two birthday celebrations and they were both by wicked pagans who also happened to suborn a murder on their birthday.
At the meeting last night, it occurred to me that we are often asked to make assumptions and treat them as "gospel." One of these assumptions ties directly to our main public reason for avoiding birthdays. I'll just give a few examples so you can understand what I was thinking.
1. They played the introduction to Esther video that makes very bold and direct statements and gives dates with a high degree of authority in the voice. Nowhere do we ever admit that these dates are assumed dates, and that we often use dates that we KNOW are 10 to 20 years off the dates that ALL the evidence points to, just because we need to make those dates fit another preconceived assumption.
2. The Imitate book (ia) says that "Ahasuerus is widely thought to have been Xerxes I" and later it says that Xerxes I (per Herodotus) did the following: "when a wealthy man begged that his son be excused from joining the army, Xerxes had the son cut in half, his body displayed as a warning."  Yet, per the CLAM workbook (Christian Life and Ministry) it says "Once, he ordered a man to be cut in half and displayed as a warning." There is barely even a hint that this is from a source OUTSIDE the Bible. Yet, of course, the comment at the meeting turned this into a FACT, not about Xerxes I, but about Ahasuerus.
3. The meeting also made a special point to say that Esther was modest because she didn't ask for extra jewelry. (2006 Watchtower) Really? Does the Bible even mention as a FACT that extra jewelry was an option? Could she have asked for LESS jewelry, or only six months of those spa treatments she was given instead of the full year? Again, the speaker turned this assumption about jewelry into a FACT.
4. The other assumption was not at first turned into a fact by the speaker, but by an answer given in audience, and the speaker then agreed 100% and made a point to say how thankful we should be for KNOWING these things. (That Mordechai refused to bow to Haman for historical reasons, but forgetting that the CLAM workbook said "Why MIGHT Mordechai have refused...?")
These were still good points to think about, and there are good reasons to discuss what MIGHT have been going through the minds of these Bible characters. My only point is that we have trouble seeing what MIGHT be true when it goes against a view we hold, but we turn the "MIGHT" into "FACT" when it supports a view. Even a point or two in the book study on Elijah went in this direction, but the main point is about the banquets of Ahasuerus:
At the first banquet, there was drunkenness apparently, and this may have been the reason Vashti was summoned, perhaps even summoned immodestly by the king. Yet at the second banquet, ("THE BANQUET OF ESTHER") the king did this:
(Esther 2:18) . . .And the king held a great banquet for all his princes and his servants, the banquet of Esther. He then proclaimed an amnesty for the provinces, and he kept giving gifts according to the means of the king.
What occurred to me is why we never look at the differences between those two banquets and make an assumption from this about celebrations. Here we have a celebration by a pagan that did NOT end up in a murder, but in just the opposite. So we MIGHT decide that there is a lesson here about parties and celebrations. Bad things happen when there is drunkenness and abuse of power at birthdays (or licentious dancing, too, in the case of Herod). Yet, we also have a lesson about GOOD that can come of birthdays when modesty and proper influences abound. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Jehovah God, the Father, calls. And so does Jesus. No contradiction. Because, in will and purpose --even though the Father is greater-- Jehovah and Jesus are the same. ("I and the Father are one"). The "call" in this case is a "command" which results in the effect of raising the dead to life. It is the simultaneous purpose of both Jehovah and Jesus to effect this resurrection and judgment. This may sound contrived and convoluted, but notice that this is the exact same explanation Jesus gives in John chapter 6:
(John 6:38-40) 38 for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 This is the will of him who sent me . . . . that I should resurrect them on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”
(1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
(Philippians 3:14) 14 I am pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God by means of Christ Jesus.
 
 
 

[Adding link to 2nd pg of discussion, since my Chrome and Firefox browsers won't link to pg.2 from the "2," "Next" or ">>" links: http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/4416-607-bce/?page=2&sortby=date ]
 
This answer certainly will not sit well with some, but I'm a stickler for full disclosure. In the long run, I think we do better when we're completely open and honest with everything we have learned. 
 
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. (John 3:11) 11 Most truly I say to you, what we know we speak, and what we have seen we bear witness to,. . . (Matthew 5:14, 15) . . .. A city cannot be hid when situated upon a mountain. 15 People light a lamp and set it, not under the measuring basket, but upon the lampstand, and it shines upon all those in the house. (Matthew 13:52) . . .every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” (Philippians 1:9, 10) . . .that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; There is no support "for our use of this year archaeologically and historically speaking." What might be even more surprising is that there is also no support for our use of this year (607) even Biblically speaking. It evidently started out as a mistake in the 1800's, but we have been stuck with it ever since. I'm aware of members of the Governing Body who have said that we should just "scrap our entire chronology" and "start over from scratch." (Those are almost exact quotes from Brother Sydlik, but Brother Swingle, and R.Franz, and others were of a similar mind. I only heard it from two of them personally, but there was a time when almost half the Governing Body gave evidence that they did not believe it necessary to start the "generation of 1914" in the year 1914: D.Sydlik, L.Swingle, G.Suiter, B.Schroeder, E.Chitty, R.Franz, K.Klein. There were evidently even more members of the Writing Department who believed the same way.) 
The most disturbing quote I remember on the subject was from a brother in Writing: ". . . if we showed humility, we'd be humiliated."
For many years, we (WTS) never thought that the 607 date was the strongest or most important method to reach 1914. In fact, 1914 had already been "proven" through several other methods. But after we discarded those other methods, the only one that still remained was the "7 times" (2.520 years), so we simply assumed that since 1914 was correct, all we had to do was subtract 2,520 years, and that would take us back to the destruction of Jerusalem. 1914-2520=-606. That's why we used the date 606 BCE for so many years -- up until 1943 and 1944. That was when we finally, formally accounted for the fact that there was no zero year between 1 BCE and 1 CE. (This is something that the Watchtower had previously questioned.)
Rather than keep 606, which would mean moving the end of the 2,520 years to 1915, we naturally just kept 1914 and moved back the destruction of Jerusalem to 607 BCE. The actual date for the destruction of Jerusalem (archaeologically and historically) didn't really matter, as long as it was exactly 2,520 years before 1914.
 
After saying all this, I should add that this should not create any doubts in the Scriptures, or the fact that we are living in the last days, or that our deliverance is getting near. It should not create any doubt about the fact that we have been provided with a full banquet of spiritual food, and should be appreciative of everything we have received. This should not reflect in the slightest on the thousands of truths we have learned about Trinity, Soul, Ransom, Jehovah's Sovereignty, Hell, Neutrality, Preaching, New Heavens & New Earth, etc., etc., etc.
This is only meant as a full, true and honest answer, to the best of my knowledge, to the initial question of the post.

[Part One - Just a little more background]
The Bible contains no dates, at least not anything like the dates we use today. There is no such thing as a date like 539 BC, or 607 BCE, or 29 CE, or AD 33, or 70 CE, or 1914. The only types of dates that the Bible uses are expressions like:
(Genesis 5:21-27) 21 Eʹnoch lived for 65 years and then became father to Me·thuʹse·lah. 22 After becoming father to Me·thuʹse·lah, Eʹnoch continued to walk with the true God for 300 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Eʹnoch amounted to 365 years. 24 Eʹnoch kept walking with the true God. Then he was no more, for God took him. 25 Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 187 years and then became father to Laʹmech. 26 After becoming father to Laʹmech, Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 782 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Me·thuʹse·lah amounted to 969 years, and then he died.
(1 Kings 15:25-34) 25 Naʹdab the son of Jer·o·boʹam became king over Israel in the second year of King Aʹsa of Judah, and he reigned over Israel for two years. 26 He kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah . . .  . . . 33  In the third year of King Aʹsa of Judah, Baʹa·sha the son of A·hiʹjah became king in Tirʹzah over all Israel and reigned for 24 years. 34  But he kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and he walked in the way of Jer·o·boʹam and in his sin that he caused Israel to commit.
A portion of the Bible therefore includes a chronology system, that appears to track the number of years from Adam to Noah (and the Flood). Another portion appears to track the number of years from Noah (through Shem) to Abraham. Other sections track the time from Abraham to the Exodus. Then it gets a bit murky. Even so we know we are not too many years off between the Exodus and the Judges and then to King Saul and David. There is a also a lot of information to help track the time from David through the last Judean King Zedekiah. But even these "synchronisms" between the lines of kings leaves several open questions, which can be interpreted in various ways. Of course, not long after Zedekiah and the return of the Jews from Babylon to Judea & Israel, it gets murky again. And we have no chronology to track the time from, say, Zedekiah until Jesus is born.
In other words, you could know that Methuselah was born a certain number of years after Adam was created, or even that Shem or Abraham was born a certain number of years after Adam was created. but you would still have no idea when Adam was created, or what year the Flood arrived. We also have those murky or incomplete portions. That means that we know, for example, that Jereboam's son Nadab became king over Israel in the second year of King Asa of Judah, but we don't know how long that was after Adam or Noah or Abraham.
Still, the main point is that even if we did have a perfectly linked chronology from Adam through Zedekiah, such as the one seen in Genesis 5 or 1 Kings 15, above, we would still have no way to tell how long ago that time period started or ended. We would not be able to identify specific years, only relative years.
The only way we can start attaching specific years, like 4 BCE, or 70 CE, or 539 BCE to any of these "relative dates" is if we decide that we will accept non-Biblical dates, otherwise known as secular dates.
4 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 33 CE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 607 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 587 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date 539 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. The reason that is important is because the question about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE or 587/6 BCE is often framed as if one of those dates is Biblical and the other is secular. They are both secular! Everyone in the world, incluing historians, scientists, archaeologists, Bible scholars, the Watch Tower Society and the Governing Body must rely completely on secular dates to figure out how many years ago a Biblical event might have happened. 
So what do we do?
We need to pick a secular date that we think we can trust and begin trying to link Biblical events to it.  Then we see if we can't create a chain of linked events backwards and forward from there. In fact, we need to pick several secular dates because the Bible's relative chronology does not really link the time around Adam, Noah and Abraham all the way through the time of the Judges and Kings. And after the Temple is rebuilt after the time of Ezra, the timeline stops again, so we'd need to find another secular date to see if we can match the time of Jesus birth, baptism, death, and any other events in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
We need to find some secular dates that we can trust! This is exactly where 539 BCE becomes so interesting. That's the time when Cyrus conquers Babylon, right? Yes, and it seems to be a perfectly good secular date for that event. If we accept it, we also get a pretty good idea when Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact, by accepting 539 BCE we ARE accepting the same secular chronology that pinpoints the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year.
(2 Kings 25:8, 9) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.
This is the whole problem! We like 539 BCE, as the final year of a Babylonian king, but don't want Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to be 587 BCE. We want his 19th year to be 607 BCE, instead. But we have a lot of trouble taking one without the other. In fact, if we say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year must be 607 BCE, then that's the same thing as saying that Cyrus conquered Babylon in 559 BCE instead of 539 BCE.
It makes no sense to say one is Biblical and one is secular. They are both secular and if you say you trust that 539 BCE is correct, then that's also the same as saying you accept that 587/6 BCE, NOT 607 BCE, is the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore the WTS has always been looking for a way to try to accept one part of the secular chronology without accepting another part of the same chronology.  Those attempts have never worked out, but this is what we'll need to discuss next.
 
 

We (WTS) used to think that 6,000 years of man's existence ended in 1873 and thus 1874 was the beginning of the thousand years. This is why the primary books of that time period were called "Millennial Dawn." The 1,000 year "day" had just dawned, and "we" were in the early morning of that day.
The fact that so many Bible chronology "proofs" led to the year 1874 was the reason that we kept that date "on the books" as significant for so many years. Up until around 1930. Changes became official for removing 1874 from our chronology "portfolio" in 1943/1944. After that, we kept 1878 as a significant prophetic year "on the books" even up until past when I was born (1957). So, although I don't remember it, we still studied that date at our "Congregation Book Study" in my lifetime.

For many years now, the Watchtower has actually been consistent in acknowledging that Ptolemy's canon "may" be accurate, but that we might not be able to rely on it for everything. Almost every reference to Ptolemy, especially in the Insight book, has a somewhat negative side added to it:
*** it-1 p. 456 Chronology ***
Finally, as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical information (as now interpreted and understood) on the texts discovered is basically accurate, this does not prove . . .
*** it-1 p. 456 Chronology ***
These astronomical diaries contain references to the reigns of certain kings and appear to coincide with the figures given in Ptolemy’s canon. While to some this might seem like incontrovertible evidence, there are factors greatly reducing its strength.
Following up on the point I was making about 539 BCE, 607 BCE, 29 CE, etc, all being secular dates, this is admitted under that same topic heading in the Insight Book:
*** it-1 p. 458 Chronology ***
To make the count in terms of modern calendar dating, we must use some fixed point or pivotal date with which to commence, that is, a date in history that has sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds with a particular event recorded in the Bible. From this date as a pivotal point we can figure backward or forward and assign calendar dates to many of the events referred to in the Bible.
One such date, harmonizing with both Biblical and secular history, is the year 29 C.E., the early months of which were in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, who was named emperor by the Roman Senate on September 15, 14 C.E. (Gregorian calendar). It was in the year 29 C.E. that John the Baptizer began his preaching and also when, perhaps about six months later, he baptized Jesus.—Lu 3:1-3, 21, 23; 1:36.
Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.)
Of course, someone could read that, especially the last paragraph, and think that 539 BCE for the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus is somehow more supported by various historical sources than is 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.  In fact, 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is part of the same Neo-Babylonian chronological system, supported by the same sets (and types) of sources. If the first year of the conquest of Cyrus is a pivotal date, then so is Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year -- for the same reasons.
The quote that Eoin included was:
*** it-1 p. 454 Chronology ***
The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well.
This is very accurate, of course, but It would have been exactly as accurate for the Insight book to have said this:
The date of 587 B.C.E. for the fall of Jerusalem can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well.
As it turns out, in fact, there are additional sources that add to the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (587 BCE), so that the evidence for 587 BCE could even be said to be a little better than the evidence for 539 BCE, but it doesn't matter because both are equally accurate. Of course, the only reason we focus only on 539 BCE is because we reject 587 BCE.
This argument is equally true in the opposite direction. Both 587 BCE and 539 BCE are also supported by "astronomical diaries" which evidently contain sometimes daily observations of priests or astronomers of the royal court. A specific diary that supports 587 BCE has sometimes been criticized by the WTS for 4 major weaknesses. Without even mentioning the details of those weaknesses, it turns out that all 4 of them are the exact same weaknesses for the diary that supports 539 BCE.
For anyone who might not be aware, these astronomical diaries contain information that can look something like the following:
10th Year of King "So-and-So"
On the night of April 13, Saturn passed within 3 fingers of the moon as it disappeared at the horizon On the night of April 15, the upper star of the head of the Scorpion passed within 2 fingers of the moon. On the morning of April 16, this is the last day this month when the moon set before sunrise. The Euphrates River was at a height of 4 today. On the evening of April 19, there was a lunar eclipse. In 10 degrees of the night it made an eclipse of 4 fingers, 2 fingers remained to totality, it was obscured on the northeast side when it began. It usually turns out that various abbreviations had developed for many of the astronomical phrases. But the main point is that sometimes there was not enough information for a specific day, and sometimes there was plenty of information, but when all of the recorded data was put together, it could often be matched to a certain year where such phenomena would not be repeated again for a thousand years.
What's more important is that all these diaries that contain enough information not only fit the time period that is already known about the various kings identified, they also match the exact year already identified from other sources. Also, they fit each other. There are sometimes two known diaries for the same king, covering separated years. It's as if the example above called: "10th Year of King So-and-So" was identified as 405 BCE and then another diary was found for the same king and it was called "15th Year of King So-and-So" and its astronomical phenomena exactly matched 400 BCE.
Unfortunately there aren't so many of these detailed diaries from the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, but the ones we do have can still be matched to their year both from the astronomical data and what we already know about their chronology from other sources.
Also, even if we could completely discredit Ptolemy's canon, which we can't, we don't need it anyway for either the 539 BCE date or the 587 BCE date. We get good evidence for both those dates, even without Ptolemy. There is no such evidence from any source that supports 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.
 
 

Depends how you feel as this is a matter for individual conscience.
A fortune cookie is nothing but an small, edible biscuit or cake of sorts, usually made from  made from flour, sugar, vanilla, and sesame seed oil. They traditionally contain a short script consisting of a vaguely "prophetic" message or "wise" saying.
The Wikipedia article on fortune cookies states that there are  "approximately 3 billion fortune cookies made each year around the world, the vast majority of them used for consumption in the United States".
It goes on to suggest that, although apparently a relatively modern American custom, there may be connection with a Japanese Buddhist or Shinto temple practice of dispensing (for money) random fortunes written on strips of paper (omuji). These sayings can predict favorable or unfavorable outcomes for the participant.
Probably the easiest comparison would be to the vague predictions found in the popular horoscope articles frequently seen in the popular press. Not many would deny having never, ever, looked at one of these, even if to ridicule its content. However, others, without the benefit of a relationship with Jehovah and an insight into demonic practices, may take these means of "divination" very seriously, regardless of their impotency.
Some now serving Jehovah, may have formerly taken these matters very seriously and have allowed such messages to exert a powerful influence in their lives. Although in the case of fortune cookies, obviously the cookie itself has no power,  they might still find that the practice, (especially if they read the message) could trigger an association and they might be tempted to look for some application of an "uncanny" or superstitious influence in their lives. A person with such a background would do well to avoid fortune cookies altogether.
In the light of Jehovah's viewpoint on such matters, clearly expressed at De.18:10-13, there is no reason why Christians would ever pay money for prophecies or wise sayings about future events from sources clearly described as demonic. Some may see this as including the purchase of fortune cookies, even under the guise of "fun". Paying money could be viewed as contributing to the promotion of a practice rooted in superstition..
But, what if these cookies are given free in a restaurant as part of the presentation of a meal? Well, eating the cookie while discarding the message is one option, Who would know apart from the staff? (What would they think if they had seen you asking a blessing before eating?). Alternatively, it would be an easy matter to decline these items, or to return them if unsolicited.
What if the group sharing a meal are not all servants of Jehovah, such as at a family or workplace outing? This is a bit more complicated but a minor trial thinking of what some of our brothers face. We might want to avoid these cookies in that situation because we do not want to stumble others for any reason, whether giving the wrong impression, or encouraging them to do something which could be detrimental in Jehovah's eyes. Compare 1 Cor 8:13. We may take the opportunity to explain why as a witness to them. Or, we could explain to the group our scriptural view of divination and magic, and how cookies are cookies regardless of a silly message, then throwaway the paper and scoff the cookie! It really is up to the individual.
So, ..............fortune cookie anyone?
 

Eoin has included a great scriptural passage relevant to the verse. With the bolded emphasis on the third verse it might be a bit confusing, though.
(Romans 12:3-8) 3 For through the undeserved kindness given to me, I tell everyone there among you not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think, but to think so as to have a sound mind, each one as God has given to him a measure of faith. 4 For just as we have in one body many members, but the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another. 6 Since, then, we have gifts that differ according to the undeserved kindness given to us, if it is of prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or if it is a ministry, let us be at this ministry; or the one who teaches, let him be at his teaching; 8 or the one who encourages, let him give encouragement; the one who distributes, let him do it liberally; the one who presides, let him do it diligently; the one who shows mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
Highlighting verse 3 only might imply that the seven or so persons on the current GB have 'thought more of themselves as is necessary to think' in the sense that have changed the doctrine to apply only to themselves when it once applied to over 100,000 different persons. I don't think this is what he intended, although Eoin should certainly correct me if I am wrong.
A better support for the practice of accepting that only a few should become teachers (James 3:1) is found in verse 8. The expression "the one who presides" actually means the same in Greek as "the one who takes the lead." One could argue that this is true in every congregation, not at a global level. The type of ministry that we, as JWs, specialize in, however, is an international evangelizing and teaching work that apparently requires a higher level of taking the lead over the entire worldwide congregation. (At least it can produce much more consistency and efficiency.)  Also, the implementation of a "Governing Body" is apparently paralleled by the idea of the apostles staying together in Jerusalem to focus on prayer and teaching, while selected "ministerial servants" managed the food distribution. That group of apostles evidently "morphed" into a "council of elders" at Jerusalem which included more than just the apostles. Prior to that, Luke says that they began a process of the 11 apostles voting to replace Judas with a replacement to keep the number at 12. Although this was done, it doesn't mean it was the "right" thing to continue doing. Similarly with the "council of elders," we don't know if this was something that would be required for all time.
But even without those precedents from Jerusalem in the book of Acts, we have Paul's word in Romans about different members having different functions. I don't think one can make a strong argument against having 'leaders who take the lead' both at a local congregation level and at a overall congregational level.
 
 

Jehovah God, the Father, calls. And so does Jesus. No contradiction. Because, in will and purpose --even though the Father is greater-- Jehovah and Jesus are the same. ("I and the Father are one"). The "call" in this case is a "command" which results in the effect of raising the dead to life. It is the simultaneous purpose of both Jehovah and Jesus to effect this resurrection and judgment. This may sound contrived and convoluted, but notice that this is the exact same explanation Jesus gives in John chapter 6:
(John 6:38-40) 38 for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 This is the will of him who sent me . . . . that I should resurrect them on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”
(1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
(Philippians 3:14) 14 I am pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God by means of Christ Jesus.
 
 
 

Jehovah God, the Father, calls. And so does Jesus. No contradiction. Because, in will and purpose --even though the Father is greater-- Jehovah and Jesus are the same. ("I and the Father are one"). The "call" in this case is a "command" which results in the effect of raising the dead to life. It is the simultaneous purpose of both Jehovah and Jesus to effect this resurrection and judgment. This may sound contrived and convoluted, but notice that this is the exact same explanation Jesus gives in John chapter 6:
(John 6:38-40) 38 for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 This is the will of him who sent me . . . . that I should resurrect them on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”
(1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
(Philippians 3:14) 14 I am pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God by means of Christ Jesus.
 
 
 

Enhancing the JW paparazzi aspect eh? Hmm.
Pretty subjective. And there might be a problem with eye-rafters. Pictures may speak a thousand words, but maybe not always those spoken by the persons in them.

As Peter counseled: "await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah" 2 Pet 3:12a
 

True. You could have numbers ranging from 30 to 40 to 50-something. This 4 generations in 400 years seems like a maximum, but the Bible explicitly lists about 8 generations during that time (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Joseph's children, Joseph's grandchildren, the generation that died out in the wilderness so as not to see the promised land (a "40-year generation" as Allen pointed out), and also the youngest generation that did see the promised land. Those 8 generations could cut the average down to 50 years.
We studied this several times at Bethel back in the 1970's and 80's. And I know that others were given the same research task long before and long after. The most interesting thing I remember about that research is something that really surprised me when it hit me: Jesus said it would NOT be one generation. His point contrasted with 40 year generation that died out in the wilderness.
So Jesus point was NOT so that we could speculate that, for example, a generation can be up to 50 years and therefore 50 years from that point would be the Jewish "Armageddon" in 70 AD. His point was that most of them would live to see it. Jesus knew that it would be much less than 50 years. If it would be 50 years, then most of them would NOT see it, and there would be no reason for anyone to lift up their heads because their deliverance was getting near.
So evidently the expression "this generation will by no means pass away" was nearly the equivalent of saying:
(Luke 9:27) "But I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Kingdom of God.”
Of course, that particular verse can be tied the fore-glimpse of the Kingdom that some apostles received just days after Jesus said it. What happened in Jerusalem's great tribulation, was also only a glimpse of what would happen in the world's great tribulation. The Christian community received a powerful lesson that we can also learn from.
But if we start calculating the maximum length of a generation and use it to determine the farthest range of time for which God Kingdom "will be done on earth" then we have missed the point.

My Greek is far from perfect, but if this verse was translated from any major mss, then I can't figure how they got that translation. Except for word order, which doesn't matter much in Greek, I think all the mss match up pretty well on this verse anyway.
The addition of the word, μὲν, plus the context, makes it impossible to translate "neither" into the text as far as I can tell. (That word, plus the context of the following verse, pretty much forces it to have the same meaning that the NWT presents.)
Sounds to me like they translated it that way because of a personal preference. It's still possible to look at how men's hair grows naturally to a shorter length on average than a woman's. The verse doesn't say anything about exact hair lengths.
   

The Chronology article in Insight should be helpful here in mapping the 4 generations to the 400 years mentioned n verse 14:
*** it-1 pp. 460-461 Chronology ***
The period from Abraham’s move to Canaan until Jacob’s going down into Egypt was 215 years. This figure is derived from the following facts: Twenty-five years passed from Abraham’s departure from Haran to the birth of Isaac (Ge 12:4; 21:5); from then to the birth of Jacob was 60 years (Ge 25:26); and Jacob was 130 at the time of his entry into Egypt (Ge 47:9); thus giving a total of 215 years (from 1943 to 1728 B.C.E.). This means that an equal period of 215 years was thereafter spent by the Israelites in Egypt (from 1728 to 1513 B.C.E.). . . . “You may know for sure that your seed will become an alien resident in a land not theirs, and they will have to serve them, and these will certainly afflict them for four hundred years.” (Ge 15:13; see also Ac 7:6, 7.) This was stated prior to the birth of the promised heir or “seed,” Isaac. In 1932 B.C.E. Ishmael was born to Abram by the Egyptian servant girl Hagar, and in 1918 B.C.E. Isaac was born. (Ge 16:16; 21:5) Counting back 400 years from the Exodus, which marked the end of the ‘afflicting’ (Ge 15:14), would bring us to 1913 B.C.E., and at that time Isaac was about five years old. . . .  The very fact that this incident was recorded in detail in the divine record also points to its marking the commencement of the prophesied 400-year period of affliction that would not end until the Exodus.—Ga 4:29.
So these 4 generations could be understood to take the full 400 years. Of course there is also a good possibility that the 4 generations refers only to the portion of those 400 years that begins after Abraham is promised a peaceful death in old age (1843 BCE), or just as likely, the portion of time that four generations of offspring will be foreigners n Egypt..
(Genesis 15:13-16) 13 Then He said to Aʹbram: “Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years. . . . 15 As for you, you will go to your forefathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. 16 But they will return here in the fourth generation, . . .
*** it-1 p. 31 Abraham ***
Finally, at the good old age of 175, Abraham died, in 1843 B.C.E.
 
If it's the 215-year portion spent in a land not theirs (Egypt) then it's 215 divided by 4 which is nearly 54 years. If it's the full 400 years divided by 4 generations Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the "12" brothers, then that averages 100 years each. If it's 400 years that starts after Abraham's death.in 1843 BCE, then 1843 to 1513 BCE leaves an average generation of 82.5 years.
The most likely one that fits the other generation examples would have to be the four generations that spent time in Egypt, not only after Abraham died, but even after Joseph died.  In this case, that's about 54 years.
(Exodus 1:5-8) . . .. 5 And all those who were born to Jacob were 70 people, but Joseph was already in Egypt. 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. 7 And the Israelites became fruitful and began to increase greatly, and they kept on multiplying and growing mightier at an extraordinary rate, so that the land became filled with them. 8 In time there arose over Egypt a new king, one who did not know Joseph
*** it-1 p. 778 Exodus ***  ". . .there could have been more than three million persons."
*** it-2 pp. 110-111 Joseph *** Joseph survived his father by about 54 years, reaching the age of 110 years. It was his privilege to see even some of his great-grandsons. Before his death, Joseph, in faith, requested that his bones be taken to Canaan by the Israelites at the time of their Exodus.
So, it obviously required 4 generations to produce the millions who traveled with Moses. Notice the average, even during times when lifespans were recorded up to nearly 1,000 years of age,
*** it-1 p. 28 Abraham ***
Abraham was the tenth generation from Noah through Shem and was born 352 years after the Deluge, in 2018 B.C.E.
That's about 35.2 years when you divide 352 years by 10 generations.
We also already know that one of the meanings Jesus had in mind was about 33 to 36 years from 33 C.E. up until Jerusalem was surrounded in 66 C.E. up until it was destroyed in 70 C.E.
 
 
 

Your example is not valid because others evidently took naps and were not beheaded. In fact, Jonah's nap under a bottle-gourd plant is associated with the repentance and salvation of a whole city.
Proverbs 23:24 You'll take afternoon naps without a worry, you'll enjoy a good night's sleep. (The Message Bible translation)
Luke 8:23 On the way across, Jesus lay down for a nap, and while he was sleeping the wind began to rise. (NLT)
However, it is possible to find that 100% of the references to "indoor plumbing" resulted in a violent death. Dogs were also associated with violence and evil in nearly 100% of the references to them. For information on "dogs," just go through any Bible concordance and you'll see it's true. For "indoor plumbing" this passage from Judges is the only direct reference to it:
(Judges 3:20-24) Then Eʹhud said: “I have a message from God for you.” So he rose up from his throne [Heb. "seat"]. 21 Then Eʹhud drew the sword from his right thigh with his left hand and plunged it into his belly. 22 The handle went in after the blade, and the fat closed in over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly, and the fecal matter came out. 23 Eʹhud went out through the porch [Heb. "air vent"], closing the doors of the roof chamber behind him and locking them. 24 After he left, the servants returned and saw that the doors of the roof chamber were locked. So they said: “He must be relieving himself in the cool interior room.”
In fact, only the rich and members of royalty had the kinds of resources to throw banquets and have indoor plumbing. This no doubt is the basis for the fact that it was only kings who were celebrating birthdays. The faithful Job, as a patriarch, had resources similar to royalty, too. This may be why we see each of Job's sons, having a banquet day, and then Job showing concern for whether any of them had "overindulged." 
(Job 1:2-5) Seven sons and three daughters were born to him [Job]. 3 His livestock amounted to 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 1,000 cattle, and 500 donkeys, along with a very large number of servants, so that he became the greatest of all the people of the East. 4 Each of his sons would hold a banquet at his house on his own set day. They would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 After a series of banquet days was complete, Job would send for them in order to sanctify them. Then he would get up early in the morning and offer up burnt sacrifices for each of them. For Job said: “Maybe my sons have sinned and have cursed God in their heart.” That is what Job would always do.
It's not impossible that those banquet days were also based on their birthdays. Whether or not Job's sons used the exact calendar day of their birth can't be known, but it is still something that these sons repeated as a "series" or a "cycle," and something that Job recognized repeatedly. Full disclosure: There is no direct evidence that Job attended these banquets, and Job's sons were also killed at some point after a series of these banquet days.
A Measuring Stick?
I wanted to mention, too, that I agree that the examples of John the Baptist and the account of Joseph and Pharaoh are used as a kind of "measuring stick." But I don't really believe that this was the real reason behind the birthday prohibitions that Brother Rutherford promoted. I think the real reason was to finally separate fellow JWs from following Brother Russell, who had happily promoted the celebration and tracking of birthdays. It seems that almost every Bible Student used a birthday book published by the Watch Tower called "Daily Heavenly Manna" on the outside spine, but with the title: "My Friends their Birthdays and Autographs" on the front cover. (Almost every used copy ever discovered has Brother Russell's own birthday figuring very prominently, including the two copies in the Bethel Library).
Brother Rutherford was concerned about this "creature worship" but he was not that concerned with "worship" of children, but of Brother Russell himself. Although he went along with it for many years after Russell's death, he privately told A.H.MacMillan that he hated it and would get rid of it if it was the last thing he did. See the book "Faith on the March" p.122:
"J.F.Rutherford . . . had another purpose. Before he left Atlanta he had determined to rid the organization of creature worship."
This was a real problem, and it made the Bible Students into a kind of "cult of Brother Russell." That's easy to see if you read what the other Bible Students were saying about Russell, especially after his death. In fact, here is something Brother Russell allowed to be published about himself even before his death, in the Bible Student's Monthly, June 1915:
"How Brother Russell Ranks in Greatness"
If C.T.Russell had devoted his life to business, it is easy to guess that John D. Rockefeller would not now be the richest man in the world, nor would J.P.Morgan have been the prince of financiers. . . . And so the man . . . is a Napoleon of finance and business. . . . Pastor Russell . . . has remarkable mental talents of the most varied character . . . like a great poet or a Hebrew seer, it is if Isaiah and J.P.Morgan were united in one individual! . . .  discrimination and analysis of a great lawyer . . . passages from his pen take their place among English classics. Another phase of his many-sided greatness is his scientific talent. . . . A mind like Agazziz and Newton.
Even Brother Rutherford had joined those voices saying:
"Charles Taze Russel, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king; and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." - Watchtower, December 1, 1916, [Reprints p.6015.]
When Brother Rutherford finally started working on this problem, he was trying to change the culture that had been the legacy of Brother Russell. It would take a while. Here are a couple of names from a portion of the 1951 Yearbook listing brothers who had been appointed to special positions at Bethel branches, or as District and Circuit Overseers ("servants"): The Yearbook introduced the list with the following statement:
The Society has appointed many individuals to take up certain duties in various parts of the earth in branch homes, in circuit and district work and in missionary homes. A few of those who are placed in positions of greater responsibility and who hold special appointments from the Society are brethren whose names are listed on the following pages.
..... [p. 51]
Peterson, Charles Taze Russell...
Poggensee, Russell Taze...
Rusk, Fred, Jr. ...
Schroeder, Albert Darger
 
[see picture uploaded with this post]
I only included Fred Rusk's and A.D.Schroeder's name because just now I saw their names included on adjacent pages, and was just remembering how both of them had asked me who would be giving my wedding talk. When Bert Schroeder asked I had already agreed to have Fred Rusk to give it. (Both are now deceased.)
At any rate, there are a lot of reasons to tie this teaching to the problem of the culture that had developed around Brother Russell. Certain kinds of dress and grooming were also frowned upon for the same reasons, according to Rutherford. I know that others have guessed that it was also related to Rutherford's opinion about children and his attempts to differentiate JWs from the world and help them avoid worldly associations. I'm sure all these could have been factors, too.
 

Yes, in answer to your question. And if their dedication and baptism was accepted, what would be the basis for dissuading them? As we recently discussed in the Watchtower, the only difference between anointed and others is their calling. So, apart from taking the emblems, their behaviour should be no different from any other dedicated 8 year old. And, as they would continue subject to their parents until adulthood, the congregation would support them as it would any other family.
And if that 8 year old should change their viewpoint later, what of it? As long as they wished to serve Jehovah faithfully, they would be supported by family and the congregation whatever their destiny.
I can't help but be reminded of the spirit of Gamaliel's words (Acts 5:39) in many of these discussions about who is and isn't anointed.