ComfortMyPeople

Referring to what I said above, here are the most significant problems with adding 20 years . Later we can then look at Mansikka's methods of overcoming these issues:
1. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years that he tacks on to the end of Nabonidus' 17-year reign to make it 37 years, then he would need to explain every single of one of the years which have astronomical observations that are identified with specific years of the NB kings. (There are at least 50 observations I have tested so far; and a single year may have multiple observations recorded.) Mansikka would have to explain why all 50 (plus) of them do not point to any of the years Mansikka has set them to, and why all 50 of them point, instead, to the same dates of the archaeological timeline.
2. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years that he tacks on to the end of Nabonidus, then we would have to wonder why we average hundreds of business tablets for EVERY year of the NB timeline, yet exactly ZERO for every single one of the years of Nabonidus 18 through 37. Since we have THOUSANDS of tablets for the reign of Nabonidus' years 1 to 17, why do we have ZERO for a full 20 years in a row. Did all business stop completely for 20 years and then pick up again during the first year of Cyrus?
3. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years, it would be impossible to predict any eclipses because they would all be 20 years off. Even the Saros cycle was known to produce only a predictably SIMILAR eclipse at a time 18 years later, but not 19, and not 20.
4. Why is it that a list of 18-year Saros cycle eclipses (LBAT 1419) found the following:
an eclipse dated to the 2nd year of Cyrus that only matches 537 BCE - the exact date that the INSIGHT book uses for CYRUS 2nd year. an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the first year of Nabonidus that only matches 555 BCE an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar that only matches 573 BCE an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 14th year of Nebuchadnezzar that only matches 591 BCE. an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 18th year of  Nabopolassar that only matches 608 BCE an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 0th year (accession) of Nabopolassar that only matches 626 BCE. If Mansikka's 20 extra years was correct, then there would have to have been TWO 18-year Saros cycles in the reign of Nabonidus:
One of them would have been just 18 years before the one dated to 537, the second year of Cyrus. That would be 537+18=555, which Mansikka calls the 21st year of Nabonidus. Yet the tablet dates it to the first year of Nabonidus. The other would have been just 18 years before 555, which Mansikka calls the 3rd year of Nabonidus 573. Yet the tablet dates that same eclipse to the 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar. The tablet knows nothing about any eclipse in either the 3rd year of Nabonidus, nor in a fictitious 21st year of Nabonidus. And of course, adding the extra 20 Watchtower years to the tablet throws every date off completely all the way back to the start under Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father). But removing the extra 20 Watchtower years produces a tablet perfectly aligned with ALL the other archaeological evidence.
Why would the Saros tablet be perfectly supportive of the Watchtower chronology (and Mansikka) for any year after 539, and completely wrong for every year before 539? The answer should be obvious. You just can't arbitrarily add 20 years to all the dates before 539 as the Watchtower has done.

The most interesting part of Mansikka's proposal is that he intends to show where the 20-year gap actually would go. Previously we showed that the archaeological evidence --and not even all of it yet-- gives us the following timeline, below, for the Neo-Babylonian period, including the BCE years, through astronomical observations and predictions that only fit specific years. Even one or two of these would be enough to date the entire period, but we already have at least 30 of them "locked in" and this isn't even all of them yet. (Several of the years have multiple astronomical observations behind them.)
To make enough room I am only showing from Nabopolassar's last 5 years and Cyrus' first three years. The first chart is the archaeological evidence:

609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 Nabop N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) Cyr 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 Here is the proposal of Pekka Mansikka based on his "new" king list, which I am presenting in the same format as above. In the chart, all I am doing is adding 20 years to the BCE year on the top row and, of course, continuing Nabonidus reign for another 20 years so that there are new regnal years 18 to 37. Mansikka gives Nabonidus a 37 year reign instead of a 17 year reign to make up the 20 year gap.

629 628 627 626 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 Nabop N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) Nabonidus (37) [add 20 yr] Cyr 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1 2 3 The chart shows actual "official" regnal years starting from year one of any king. The accession would have started in the previous month or months before Nisanu of the year shown. However, this shows up some one-year inconsistencies in the way that Mansikka produces his king list below, because he sometimes starts a king's accession year prior to the end date of the previous king, which is impossible. He sometimes gets it right and sometimes wrong, so it's hard to say whether these are just typos.

I think that several significant problems should be immediately apparent to anyone who has given this much thought. I'll point them out in another post.

An author from Finland named Pekka Mansikka has written several books and papers which, among other things, look to adjust the secular chronology to fit the Watchtower's chronology. For those who don't know, the Watchtower's chronology requires an extra 20 years of time somewhere between Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. This has the effect of pushing back any archaeological date in Nebuchadnezzar's reign by 20 years.
In fact, it affects dates going back much further than that, so that:
if one reads that the Battle of Carchemish happened on the archaeological date of 605 BCE, the WTS date will be 605+20=625 BCE if the Battle of Harran happened in 609 using archaeological dates, then the WTS date will be 609+20=629 BCE if one reads that the fall of Nineveh was in 612 using archaeological dates, then the WTS date will be 612+20=632 BCE The same thing continues to occur even farther back into the Assyrian empire and the Israelite and Judean kings. Although several other factors were involved here, I think it's not a complete coincidence that Bishop Ussher famously put Adam's creation in 4004 BCE, and the Watchtower currently has this at 4026 BCE, a 22-year difference.
Fortunately, Pekka Mansikka has give his permission to discuss any and all parts of any of his works here on this forum:
Several of his works can be found online, or for purchase at very modest costs on Kindle. A good portion of the Kindle books are available for free preview, and most of the content of these books is also available on academia.edu.
Here are some links to his material:
https://independentresearcher.academia.edu/PekkaMansikka
See all 18 items at that link. Sometimes it's only the Table of Contents that shows up here.
 
50 to 70 pages of his primary book are available in free preview here:
New Chronology Using Solar Eclipses
He also offered the following links, two of which are e-books:
https://www.pm-netti.com/lookout-ancient-eclipses
https://www.pm-netti.com/kirjat/PM-Tiedekirjat/nebuchadnezzarv
https://journal.pm-netti.com/
Most sources for his own reference material can also be found online for free, or free with limits. You can find links in his own work to many sites.
 
The most interesting topics he covers are:
The reign of Nabonidus. He is brave enough to actually try to show exactly where the 20 missing years should be found. VAT 4596. A proposition to synchronize Neo-Babylonian chronology with Egyptian chronology.  

You can tell it's from a few decades ago because it doesn't mention WWII and lists the USSR as a power at the end.
The width of the color blocking is relative power at that time.

I see that, again, you didn't dare answer the question: Who is right? Your source or the Watchtower?
As usual, you are using "wordplay" (by your definition) to avoid and evade answering the questions. Let's see if you are able to answer directly:
Did your source say that there was an eclipse reported for July 4, -567 that failed? Did it say that an eclipse was expected but did not occur? It's a YES/NO question so a simple YES or NO should suffice.
But I can pretty much assume that you will not stand by what you wrote when you quoted the author. I think you will either find an excuse to ignore this question or you will use "wordplay" to evade it, or backtrack.
And the second part of this question is this:
Did the Watchtower claim that an eclipse did in fact occur on that date? A simple YES or NO should suffice.
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
It is a fact that a lunar eclipse occurred on July 4 (Julian calendar) of this month during 568 B.C.E.

Yet the Watchtower says it is a fact that this eclipse actually occurred: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274030/7/0
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
It is a fact that a lunar eclipse occurred on July 4 (Julian calendar) of this month during 568 B.C.E.
So who is right? Your source or the Watchtower?
(By the way, you have had about a 100% failure rate so far in all of your attempts to give evidence for your false assumptions. If I remember correctly, this has also been true of every post you have ever made on this subject in every place on this forum on every occasion when it came up.)
Edited to add that the mistake made by your source [H. van der Waerden] is a common one that John Steele has explained and I see that others have also explained the same mistake.

Billions of people may be smarter than me. But it doesn't require as much smarts as you probably think it does to understand this.
I did. It was pretty simple.
No, I never said I was attending college. I haven't attended college for many years. If you were confused about the university account I use for JSTOR, etc., I have stated that it was an "alumni" account. Alumni means I already finished.
Is that why you think people go to college? How did that work out for you when you went for those PhD's? I pioneered my way through college. I took 7 semesters of Hebrew, and I thought that my computer science degree would result in more choices of part time jobs, to continue pioneering. Instead I ended up with full time jobs, and retired about 10 years ago. No more college for me.
If you are continuing to project, I apologize for bruising your ego.
Who is this Adam? Is this supposed to be another name you are guessing is me? If so, wrong again.
 

I would never kick you out. Not just because I don't have that ability, but because I think your posts are some of the most revealing. You probably don't even realize how much they help people realize the  of the depths of dishonesty that even a Witness will stoop to, in order to try to defend the WTS chronology here. Your writing is one of the strongest evidences against the WTS chronology for those who may not have the time to consider the facts and evidence.
Also, if you look, you will see that the post I moved was only because Arauna wrote up a very good defense of creation and against AlanF, who was trying to make a big deal out of a typo again. Just click on the link and go to page 7 or 8, and you'll see why the posts were moved. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/page/7
"Ignorant French"?? Are your prejudices showing?
Goodness! I don't know what he did with them. Did you know that Rutherford thought that people were Satanic if they didn't agree with him about 1925? Calling someone Satanic is simply the ultimate ad hominem. It's usually good evidence that there is something wrong with the thing you are trying to defend. Especially if the only other defense is gibberish.

Around the year 400 BCE a historian/writer named Hippias of Elis began a "sports magazine" which came to be called Olympianikai, in which he assembled cumulative victor lists from the Olympic games. (The Pythian Games had been held every 4 years, too, and the Nemean and Isthmian games were held every two years.)  The Olympic were the most popular. Prior to Hippias, there were several lists, but no consistent, portable, useful preserved lists of the victors. At this time no one had yet thought to number the Olympic games from a specific starting point to make a "common era" of Olympiads by which to count calendar years, but that would come within a few decades. Hippias guessed that the Olympic games in their official current format had been started by a famous Spartan Lawgiver, which Hippias thought was nearly 400 years earlier.
Here's a pretty easy to understand bit of research on the topic:
Contrary to what one might expect, Hippias did not arrive at the date of 776 on the basis of written records pertaining to the Olympics or to Olympic victors. Instead, he calculated the date of the first Olympiad by associating that Olympiad with a famous Spartan lawgiver named Lycurgus, who was a member of one of the Spartan royal families and who was believed to have helped organize the Olympic Games. Hippias used a list of Spartan kings to determine the number of generations between his own time and that of Lycurgus. He then assigned a fixed number of years to each generation and ended up with a date for Lycurgus and hence the first Olympiad. The inaccuracies inherent in this approach mean that the date of 776 for the first Olympiad is at best an approximation. The excavators at Olympia have suggested a date closer to 700.
Of course, neither Hippias in 400 BCE nor anyone else would have used the number 776 BCE, because the BCE/CE era wouldn't be invented for another few hundred years. Until then, just like the Babylonians, one needed an eponym list, or king list with lengths of reigns on them, if one wanted to get the full number of years between events far apart. That's why Hippias needed a king list of Spartan kings.
By the year 350 BCE or so, Ephorus began using those Olympic game 4 year "pegs" as markers for writing history. And several decades after that the Librarian at Alexandria around 200 BCE, accepted the notion that the first Olympic games had happened about 600 years earlier, a date we now call 776 BCE, agreeing with Hippias.
Now, one could more easily calculate how long ago Nebuchadnezzar lived, or Cyrus, or Darius the Great, or Xerxes or Artaxerxes, or famous persons who had lived during the time of those kings, like Socrates or Homer. And all they had to do is take the appropriate kings' lists to get the order of the kings, their names, and the lengths of their reign and begin working backwards to see which Olympiad that king's reign must have corresponded to. At about the same time as Ephorus began using the Olympiads for his writing around 350 BCE, The Greeks and Babylonians (and Jews) had already begun using the new Seleucid Era beginning in what we now call 311 BCE. Even one of the later "Babylonian Chronicles" mentions the Seleucid Era, and the Seleucids would continue to use the king's lists and astronomy to date their findings and observations within dates in this new era. It's used in some Jewish and Catholic Bibles in the books of the Maccabees. The Seleucids would still use king lists and astronomy to figure out how many years Before Seleucid Era an event had occurred. 
But, back to the Olympiads, which began as a dating system about 200 years after Cyrus (539).  It should also be mentioned that there was a 1,500 year gap in the games, and the Olympiad method was depopularized as Christianity took over around 393 CE and stopped the ceremonial games:
https://ancientolympics.co.uk/
The longest gap between Olympic Games, in years. [1,500] Whilst 4 years was and is the longest you have to wait between each games, prior to their resumption in 1896 you have to go all the way back to Theodosius I in AD 393, to the last time the olympics were run. Although the precise date is not certain, we do know that the ceremony was abandoned in order to establish Christianity as the de facto religion. Having conquered Greece, the Romans saw the Games as a pagan festival and a threat to the new state religion.
Just a note that most Greco-Romans and Christians were actually already using the Diocletian Era ever since it had started in the year we now call 284 AD/CE. It wasn't until about 525 AD/CE when the term "525" was first used as the Anno Domini dating system was devised by Dionysius Exiguus. So no one really used the term 500 BC, or 600 BC until well after Dionysius Exiguus. What we now call 776 or 539 BCE, was actually still calculated by kings' lists, or eras like the Seleucid era, or for a while, the Olympiad era. But historicans first calculated them backwards with kings' lists (which had been passed down and verified with star and planetary observations for Babylonian, Persian, and Greek kings) to be able to "peg" a king or famous person to the right Olympiad in the past. The Seleucid Era (SE) was still a widespread dating era alongside the Olympiads, and the SE lasted until the 500's CE/AD about the time when AD (BCE/CE) was becoming popular.
The main point is that no historical kings or events were tied to a specific Olympiad until after about 350 BCE, or about 200 years after Cyrus. But the fact that these had been attached to Olympiads by working backwards with the kings' lists, which were validated by stars and planets, meant that most of those Babylonian/Persian era kings would be as accurate as those kings' lists and the stars and planets themselves. Therefore we should expect Cyrus to have been "pegged" to the right date, and any other king mentioned by historians who were transferring those lists over to the Olympiad system.
This is why it is surprising that the WTS accepts Cyrus from 200 years before the Olympiad dating system was started, but rejects the Olympiad dating for Artaxerxes which would have been "pegged" only about 100 years prior to the first use of the Olympiad dating system.
The WTS rejects the archaeological dates from just before 539 BCE so that 1914 will work, and the WTS rejects the Olympiad dates from around 455 BCE so that 33 CE will work. Rejecting them in 455 (actually the change to Artaxerxes accession year is changed in the WT from 465 to 475 BCE, but it is mostly his 20th year that the WTS wants to adjust, which throws off the Olympiads dating by about 2 and one/half Olympiads.

If you see a place where I made a mistake, be specific about where and how. Otherwise it will look like you are just pretending.
I haven't argued absolute proof. And it's clear to me that you don't need any mathematical equation. You can just find ANY observed and/or predicted date in Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and then find every other year of his reign by counting from one of those predicted and/or observed dates.
The WTS uses a "kinked" mathematical equation: It adds 20 to the archaeological evidence for all events prior to 539 BCE. It adds 0 to the years after 539 BCE until some 10-year exceptions are needed around 455 BCE, and then it goes back to the archaeological evidence again.
As far as I know, "Comfortmypeople" is a Witness from Spain. I don't think he is Anna, just as I don't think I am Arauna.
You don't need to subtract starting with 747 BCE.
As I said, you can simply forget about 747 and go directly to any of the other years that are directly pointed to by the archaeological evidence for Nebuchadnezzar. If you want to know Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year because the Bible says that a certain thing happened in that year, then you can go directly to any one year shown in a piece of archaeological evidence (LBAT 1420) to see that his . . .
1st year started in 604 BCE (according to the eclipse reading) 2nd year started in 603 . . . 3rd ... 602... 4th ... 601... 5th ... 600... 10th ...595... 11th ...594... 12th ...593... 13th ...592... 14th ...591... 15th ...590... 16th ...589... 25th ...580... 26th ...579... 27th ...578... 28th ...577... 29th ...576... So if you want to know his 18th year, you can use the "natural history" from the archaeological evidence to determine that his 1st year was 604 BCE and then go forward 17 more years and get 587 BCE. (587+17=604). Just to double-check, you might want to check the reading for his 16th year and you will see that the "natural history" recorded on the archaeological evidence points to 589 for his 16th. So if you want the 18th just move 2 more years forward and you will get 587 BCE again (587+2=589). You can resolve any of Nebuchadnezzar's 43 years, even his accession year (of course), from any one of the readings shown above.
If you wish, you can even double-check if VAT 4956 fits the above for his 37th year. It does. Then you can go see if LBAT 1419 supports the dates of his reign as shown above. It does. Then you can go see if LBAT 1421 supports the dates of his reign as shown above. It does. Then you can check the planetary tablet SBTU VII 171 to see if it supports the dates of his reign as shown above. It does.
In fact you could throw out VAT 4956, SBTU..., LBAT 1420, and LBAT 1421, and still you would have the same years shown above from remaining archaeological evidence. You really only need one item to fill out all the other years. But, as it turns out, you have several with dozens of individual points to check, and they all point to the dates above --and any one date fills in all the missing years, too.
 

Actually there are likely about 50,000  Neo-Babylonian tablets, and MOST of them have dates on them.
The dates are in the form of the YEAR, the MONTH and the DAY of the month. The YEAR is in the form of the King's name and whether it is his accession year or which year of his reign we are in. The accession year was the equivalent of saying Year ZERO, the year before the official reign began.
It's the same as if the United States dated all years by the President's name and Presidential year. For example, 50-some years since 1933 would be named like this:
FDR0 to FDR12, TRUMAN0 to TRUMAN8, IKE0 to IKE8, JFK0 to JFK2, LBJ0 to LBJ6, NIXON0 to NIXON5, , FORD0 to FORD3, CARTER0 to CARTER4, REAGAN0 to REAGAN8.
So let's say a person was born in "1933" and died in "1982" but they only used dates of the presidencies.
They would say they were born in the year FDR0 (accession of FDRs presidency) and died in the year REAGAN2. If you wanted to know how old that person was you would say they lived for all 12 years of FDR, 8 under TRUMAN, 8 under IKE, 2 under JFK, 6 under LBJ, 5 under NIXON, 3 under FORD, 4 under CARTER, and 2 under REAGAN. That's 12+8+8+2+6+5+3+4+2= 50. They died in their 50th year. We would also say the person was 49 years old, but it is also accurate to say they were in their 50th year. That checks out 1982 - 1933 is 49.
Their own memory or community memory would supply the order of the presidents (or NB kings) and later historians would make sure to make a president's list to keep them in order. (Although in truth, flipping two or more of the presidents into the wrong order could still give you the right answer.)
You are probably referring to royal inscriptions. Most of the nearly 50,000 dated tablets don't refer to some great local event. They may only say things like:
"NEBUCHADNEZZAR YEAR 7, MONTH 1 (Nisannu) DAY 12 - Received 20 bushels of wheat and 10 bushes of barley from Uruk"
You can't necessarily track these to our time. But if you get an average of say 400 of them for every year of the near 90 years of the full Neo-Babylonian timeline, you could easily put together a full timeline for those 90 years, especially if several of them crossed over between the reign of two kings. And if you find that about two dozen of these years are also marked on other tablets with unique astronomical positions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars then you can track the year in our own time.
For example, as you say, you can't tell the year of the mundane tablet above, but if another tablet (like LBAT 1420) says:
NEBUCHADNEZZAR YEAR 4, MONTH 1, DAY 13: [with a lunar position described in such detail that it could only belong to an observation on April 11, 601 BCE]
So now you have evidence --not proof-- but evidence that if NEB4 was 601 BCE then NEB7 above was 598 BCE. You now have a date to put on the mundane tablet.
Although you are only dealing with evidence, not proof, what would you say if you tested 40 of these astronomical settings and every single one of them consistently supported each of the others in putting together the order of the NB timeline? And what if every one of the 50,000 tablets fit perfectly into this timeline without an exception?
You probably would feel that the evidence was like a strong cable.

That's why I didn't say it was. Why would you think it necessary to say something untrue about what I said?
I finished over 100 pages. It is clear enough what he thinks. And it's clear enough that you either misunderstand him, or are being dishonest.
Then you absolutely do not know what historiography is. COJ's book is a treatise that combines discussions of the proper use of historiography. There are times when it is limited in how much help it provides, and times when it is so misused as to be subverted. This is why several of his sources are specialists in historiography. Of course, you can always give an example of the historiography you learned about and explain why he does not present any "such" but you already started out telling an easily countered untruth about COJ, and you were caught. So I'm not going to be terribly interested since you can't be trusted anyway.
It's an interesting topic that proves nothing to me one way or the other. I like the fact that the strong cable of archaeological evidence confirms the Bible accounts through this period of history. But I don't need that secular evidence personally to trust the Bible. I also think it is revealing that the WTS arbitrary cherry-picking, of which NB dates are good and which are not, has created a pseudo-chronology that is defended by persons who won't look at the data for themselves. If all persons, so far, who defend it will prefer incompetence or dishonesty, instead of looking at the evidence, then this says something about the quality of the evidence, too.
I trust the Bible, and I trust that in Jehovah's good time, this secular, human tradition about 607 will be dropped from our teachings. If not, it doesn't mean it is right, but it is not so important to concern ourselves about. 607 could be absolutely right, but this doesn't make 1914 right.
We are living in the last days, not because of 1914, but because the Bible says we are. Jesus is present, not because of 1914, but because the Bible says he is. Jesus is king of kings and lord of lords, not because of 1914, but because the Bible says he is. Paul said Jesus was ruling at God's right hand until Jehovah puts all enemies under his feet, even Death. That's the time we are awaiting, praying for God's kingdom to come, and not because of a date, or the length of a generation. The end can come at any time, and it is our duty as Jehovahs' Witnesses to be ready. Most prophecies about judgments in the past were predicted by prophets, so that even the time period would be known. Jesus said this particular parousia would come like a thief in the night, like lightning, as if without warning as in the days of Lot leaving Sodom. Our preparation this time has nothing to do with knowing the day or the hour, or the times and seasons, but in our Christian conduct. It's about our love for Jehovah and for our neighbor. It's our love for the ransom, and our love for Jehovah's government. This is the primary message of the Bible:
(2 Peter 3:11, 12) . . .Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . .
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

No, it doesn't. I checked.
True, but there is no reason to. You get the same answers from archaeology even if you threw out the King's List that was still being used in the time of Ptolemy's Almagest. And there is no reason to start in 747. You can develop the entire timeline from archaeology and historiography (without the Almagest) and then start from any year of any king. No reason to concern oneself with 747 BCE.
You already proved that you didn't understand what at least one scholar was saying about the ancient scribes (John Steele) If you want to claim something specific, go ahead, but these vague and ill-formed claims have never gone anywhere.
I don't argue proof. But, if you looked at it, I'm you would see why the evidence is accepted as absolute and definitive, even overwhelming. Even if every scribe lied about what historical stories to sync, that would be irrelevant. The point is that we can know what BCE year it was when Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year occurred. It is only the Bible scribe that matters if the Bible says a certain event happened at that point. Unless you are trying to argue that the Bible scribe was trying to achieve an historical story to sync.
Quite the contrary. It is natural history that is defending the observations of the Bible. We could ignore the Babylonian written history altogether. You have never been able to give one instance of natural history contradicting any of the other observations from natural history. And that's all this is about primarily, the fact that the natural history observations coincide with and support all the other natural history observations, creating a strong cable of chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period.
You put a bunch of disjointed items under the heading "Secular Evidence." If you have a specific point to make, you should say it.
567 BCE was realized in 567 BCE. Your premise about LBAT 1420 is false. But even if it were true, it would show that 567 actually was realized in 567.
And that is one of the ways we know for sure that you should not be adding 19 year cycles. And why it's wrong to pretend you can use either 18 year cycles or 19 year cycles to fake a pseudo-chronology. However, their very existence can help you see why it is so very dishonest to try to re-adjust the archeological date by 20 years (a score) to reach a Watchtower "goal year."
Just like with "scholar JW," you are either showing extreme incompetence here, or plain dishonesty. You've had plenty of chances to learn what the archaeological evidence shows. I'm not engaging just to help you untangle your strings of logical fallacies. If you want to claim something specific instead of all this pretentiousness, make your point. But your statement above is about the equivalent of saying that since the photocopied pages that the teacher made for the class have from the math book have a two year mistake in one of the questions, then all answers for all questions can now be wrong by 19 to 22 years depending on which teacher used the copy machine.
537 is fine with me. 607 as the beginning of the 70 years is fine with me too. Both of those dates are within a a couple of years of the archaeological evidence.
And yet, the WTS relies on one of them for it's astronomical data. The one the WTS relies on is problematic compared to the VT 4956, but at least they both give the right years that the rest of the archaeology shows.
By the way, you could throw out both VAT 4956 and throw out Ptolemy's Almagest, and still you'd get 587 for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar from dozens of other points of archaeological evidence.
This might be useful to discuss at length. It's too easy to just claim that he is a very sloppy sychophant of Furuli's work, but he definitely didn't catch on to the places where Furuli showed the most dishonesty and/or incompetence. This is easily shown, but the example you offered about a two-year error has absolutely no basis in evidence.
Exactly. You can use them and they provide good evidence that the observations were not referring to observations from 18 or 19 years earlier or later. Or you can ignore them and realize that the archaeological evidence stands very definitive and absolute without any concern about them whatsoever. Persons who try to use them to create 20 year differences (18+2=20, or 19+1=20) are just fooling themselves, or being dishonest. Always watch out for people who try that kind of trickery.

This reminds me of a major point that the Watchtower publications and no Witnesses have yet tried to explain.
There are tens of thousands of "dated" tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period. They are not evenly distributed, but a huge portion come from Nebuchadnezzar's reign, which is the one we are most interested in anyway. Also there are dozens more of these astronomical readings that all point to the exact same chronology I pointed out earlier. I have matched several more of the eclipses, and all of them give excellent, consistent evidence that all the archaeological evidence is accurate.

  625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530   N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 591 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
With the "contract" tablets alone, there are literally tens of thousands of tablets that support the above chronology. There are zero of the tens of thousands that would discredit or falsify the above chronology.
So we can definitively say that the archaeologically supported chronology is the one shown above and the Watchtower chronology is completely unsupported for every year prior to 539. The WTS publications support the 17 years of Nabonidus, and the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, and the first year of Evil-Merocach. So this leaves a 20 year gap between the EM2 and NERI4. A 20 year gap to be found somewhere in those 5 years that the archaeological evidence indicates.
Imagine that there are about 30,000 tablets that support the nearly 90 years of Neo-Babylonian timeline. If they were evenly distributed that would mean about 333 tablets per year. If the Watchtower's arbitrarily imagined gap actually existed, that would mean that 6,666 tablets of the 30,000 found are still missing. If these tablets all came from one place that might be a possibility. But many are from major temples, and many others are from personal business contracts from hundreds of different people altogether.
And of course, if this gap were a real thing, it would mean that all those eclipses could never have been predicted correctly, and all the astronomical readings from both before and after the gap would have been impossible to have faked. There really is absolutely no reason to imagine an arbitrary gap of 20 years. The Biblical evidence fits very well with the above, but would be nearly impossible to explain if the imagined gap theorized by the WTS had actually existed.
All the evidence says that the Watchtower-promoted gap is impossible. In fact, it's not even possible to propose where a ONE-year gap might go.
Most of the time the secular chronology in Biblical history is not that good. One might even surmise that if there ever a time period in history where Jehovah wanted us to know the actual definitive, absolute date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year, for example, then this would be the period of time when all those tens of thousands of documents were protected from the elements.
 
 

I changed my mind about creating a table of the Jon/Cameron comments and then commenting on various portions. It seemed that it was just a repetition of what we have already gone over, and are still going over elsewhere.
Although this is mostly true, I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize that almost all Bible commentators and scholars count 70 years back from around 537 (plus or minus two years) and end up believing that 607 BCE is acceptable (plus or minus two years). Because of the "controversy" a lot of Witnesses might believe that this general time period for the 70 years is being disputed by ex-Witnesses like AlanF, Ann O'maly, COJ and others. People some might think that Witnesses like Gertoux are disputing the 70 years during this general time period. For myself, I have mentioned that I think that 607 BCE to 537 BCE is just fine for the period of 70 years (plus or minus a couple of years).
Even AlanF believes that the 70 years is within a couple of years of 607 to 537. (Specifically, from 609 to 539).
The reason so many Bible commentators use 539 back to 609 is because this is a 70-year period with actual, definable, and dateable events at each end.
So there is nothing so far off about the date 607 BCE for the beginning of the 70 years. It implies that the actual end date of the 70 years was 537, and although this would only be 2 years off the most Biblically acceptable date, it implies that the Israelites were still serving Babylon even after Babylon was destroyed. But the sense is not impossible in my opinion, because most of the exiles were still in exile in Babylon until Cyrus probably decreed they could go home in the first month of 538. (Arauna has often insisted that the decree MUST have happened in the first month of 538 at the New Year's Akitu festival. This would mean that they were back by the seventh month of 538 (c. October 538) which is actually only a couple months from January 537.)
 
Of course, the Watchtower publications, although they once used 606 to 536 for these dates, do not allow for an adjustment even by a month. Since Jerusalem was destroyed in the summer, it must be October 607 for the start, and since we claim (without any evidence) that Cyrus waited until months after the beginning of the year to make the decree, and therefore NOT at the festival of Akitu and 538, that it must have been the following year 537 in the 7th month (Tishri/October) when the Jews returned. (And we count back a few more months to give them time to prepare and travel, putting the decree as likely in the first month of 537, not 538.)
Here's how INSIGHT puts it:
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize what INSIGHT means by "In view of the Bible record . . ." It has nothing to do with anything written in the Bible about Cyrus or the exile or the return. It means, basically: "In view of our interpretation of Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, Cyrus must have made the decree late enough after the beginning of 538 so that they could not have resettled in 538, otherwise WWI and our interpretation of 1914 would not quite fit, and the "parousia" would have started in 1913."  I'm not kidding in the least about that. Those words are about our interpretation of 1914 and nothing else.
And of course the big difference between any scholars who might start the 70 years in 609/608 and the Watchtower publications is that the Watchtower says that 609/8 is when the siege on Jerusalem began, resulting in it's final destruction in 607. That's Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. The other scholars and Bible commentators indicate that the archaeological date of 609 is 4 years before Nebuchadnezzar even began his first accession year after his father died, but that it was marked by the Battle of Harran in 609 BCE, not the destruction of Jerusalem which happened about 22 years later. So the Watchtower chronology says 607 is Jerusalem's destruction 18 or 19 years into Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and the archaeologically-supported chronology says 607 is near the end of Nebuchadnezzar's father's reign, more than 20 years different.
Saying that Babylon began dominating the region for 70 years fits the Bible's account, but the Watchtower publications would like an easier explanation of Daniel 4, which requires a different event in 609/608/607. The ending of the Davidic/Messianic kingdom makes for a better event, so the destruction of Jerusalem is arbitrarily changed from 657 to 607. Other commentators note that the death of the last good king Josiah in 609 (archaeological time not Watchtower time) makes for a pretty good demarcation of the 70 years with respect to Judea and Jerusalem. A commentary by Albertz considers the start of the reign Jehoiakim to be the reason that the Chronicler begins discussions of deportations (exiles) in the reign of Jehoiakim which would have started in 609/8 after the death of his father Josiah.
If the Watchtower wanted to save 607 (plus or minus a couple of years), and if they decided to begin using archaeological evidenced chronology instead of arbitrary Watchtower chronology, it could be done with this verse:
(2 Kings 24:1, 2) . . .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. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites. He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken through his servants the prophets.

There will probably be people reading this who believe that you are claiming that Albertz equates 70 years of Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus. Obviously, Albertz does NOT believe the 70 years of Jewish exile begin with the Fall and end with the return under Cyrus. And since it's not true, you are being deceptive if you imply that it is. For example, in one sense Albertz says that Israel is still in the exilic period, "extending down to the present:"

Then notice that Albertz does not consider a "simple" demarcation at the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6, and most definitely does not end it at the usual demarcation of Cyrus in 539/8:

Read it carefully. He prefers to consider the exilic period from 587/6 but says there was already a golah -- an EXILE -- in 598/7.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/golah
History and Etymology for golah
Hebrew gōlāh exile
That's the same exile the Watchtower dates, not to 607 (or 597), but to 617, because the WTS simply adds 20 years to the date supported by archaeology and NeoBabylonian chronology. 617-20=597. Note that the INSIGHT book also calls this an exile:
*** it-1 p. 795 Ezekiel, Book of ***
In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision
593 + 25 = 618; and, 618 - 20= 598
*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
Following the siege of Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s “third year” (as vassal king), Daniel and other Judeans, including nobles and members of the royal family, were taken as exiles to Babylon
And the INSIGHT book also calls the exile of 582 "an exile" (Although the WTS adds 20 to 582 to make it about 602 or 603 BCE):
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Later Exiles of Jews. About three years later, in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, more Jews were taken into exile. (Jer 52:30) This exile probably involved Jews who had fled to lands that were later conquered by the Babylonians.
And INSIGHT even agrees with Albertz, that in one sense, large numbers were still in exile around 20 years after Cyrus, during the time of Zerubbabel's work which INSIGHT gives as 522 to 515 BCE:
*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
Both the book of Ezra (2:1-67) and the book of Nehemiah (7:6-69) list the number of exiles from various families or houses who returned from Babylonian exile with Zerubbabel.
I expect that Ann O'maly and AlanF probably already covered this for you, but you had addressed me with the claim on a previous page where I pointed out that your claim about Bryan and Albertz was wrong. You included this false statement.
The "facts" proved you wrong. But why did you think it necessary to make a big deal out of the fact that COJ doesn't use the term "historiography." And why would you go out on a limb just to be wrong again? I take it you have never read COJ?
Here are some quotes from COJ from GTR4. The main theme of the whole book is about historiography. Since you obviously need to learn some skills about how to search words to avoid spreading untrue statements, I'll leave it to you to find the page numbers:
In his discussions of historiography, he quotes from several different sources about it:
The Watch Tower Society, in its Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. I, p. 453), devotes only one paragraph to Berossus. Almost the whole paragraph consists of a quotation from A. T. Olmstead’s Assyrian Historiography in which he deplores the tortuous survival history of Berossus’ fragments via Eusebius’ Chronicle (cf. note 6 above). Although this is true, it is, as noted, essentially irrelevant for our discussion
Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia show that, in order to break the power and morale of a rebel quickly, the imperial army would try to ruin the economic potential “by destroying unfortified settlements, cutting down plantations and devastating fields” — Israel Eph’al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires,” in H. Tadmor & M. Weinfield (eds.), History, Historiography and 1nterpretatian (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1984), p. 97.
Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition (Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill, 1992), pp. 106, 260, 261.
In fact he correctly uses the term historiography in a discussion of the Watchtower's misuse of historiography and misrepresentation of authorities on historiography here:
It has been amply demonstrated above that the Watch Tower Society in its “Appendix” to “Let your Kingdom Come” does not give a fair presentation of the evidence against their 607 B.C.E. date:
(1) Its writers misrepresent historical evidence by omitting from their discussion nearly half of the evidence presented in the first edition of this work (the Hillah stele, the diary BM 32312, and contemporary Egyptian documents) and by giving some of the other lines of evidence only a biased and distorted presentation. They erroneously indicate that priests and kings might have altered historical documents (chronicles, royal inscriptions, etc.) from the Neo-Babylonian era, in spite of the fact that all available evidence shows the opposite to be true.
(2)They misrepresent authorities on ancient historiography by quoting them out of context and attributing to them views and doubts they do not have.
(3)They misrepresent ancient writers by concealing the fact that Berossus is supported by the most direct reading of Daniel 1:1–6, by quoting Josephus when he talks of seventy years of desolation without mentioning that in his last work he changed the length of the period to fifty years, and by referring to the opinion of the second century bishop, Theophilus, without mentioning that he ends the seventy years, not only in the second year of Cyrus, but also in the second year of Darius Hystaspes (as did his contemporary Clement of Alexandria and others), thus confusing the two kings.
I can give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not purposely deceiving anyone, and that these mistakes are just evidence of incompetence as a reader. But then, of course, you must be deceitful about your "scholarly" abilities. But perhaps you did lie about reading the book, or lie about how clear it was to you, because if you really had, then your mistakes should have been obvious.
Also, why are you spending so much time on a particular scholar or two who seem to have views that are exceptions to most other scholars? If scholars are so all-important to you in this discussion, you should explain why you have dismissed the supposed authority of the majority of scholars. You cherry-pick one or two scholars, claiming they say a certain thing, and then you misrepresent even these very scholars you wish to rely on. But why so much attention to scholars in the first place?
With a little effort you could learn a lot of this same information without even relying on all these secular scholars.
This doesn't mean I didn't find the Albertz book interesting. I had seen that the WTS had quoted from him before, but I had not ever read (about 70 pages of) his book until now.
Somehow, I must doubt this. I can see that if you really did read it then you are telling untruths about what it says. Whether these are "lies" or not depends on your competence to understand what you claimed to have read. But you are definitely telling things that are not true, saying they are found in his book, and they aren't there.

Your "case" was that there was only one Exile and that "That Exile was of a duration of 70 years ending with the return under Cyrus. "
So if you rest your case it's the same as admitting that your case was defeated. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why. I don't trust you to admit it, but I'm sure you will at least see it if you read the same book where, as you say, he makes his position perfectly clear.
For me, deception means obfuscation and lying. To you, as you admit here, "deception" is your word for rejecting "our sacred Bible Chronology."

I know that comment was not to me but to AlanF. I think it reveals your goal. You have pretty well established the fact that you are here to try to provoke chaotic arguments. And as answers are resolved, you will pretend they were not resolved by simply repeating the weaknesses of your argument as if they were strengths. The resulting chaos works. It produces 60 pages of confusion which was obviously the goal all along. It works because it plays on the prejudices of those who were never going to look things up for themselves anyway. I've seen how this same method works in other areas of ideology and propaganda, both online and to a large extent in the media. I've seen revealed documents that show that it is a preferred covert method of government agencies, too. (I.e., when all else fails, create chaos.) 
From chaos, people will pick up from where they started, and will often dig in their heels even a little deeper to the ideas they held before the chaos. And it's not that people never change their views. But, unfortunately, there have even been several studies that show that the "side" with the least facts and least evidence tends to win more adherents after a lengthy argument is observed.
So, we could go on and on. I notice that you often throw out some "bait" which must be intended to keep an argument going. Sometimes you appear to give in and agree when it's too tough to hold your ground. But then a few pages later you'll pretend you hadn't learned a thing, after all. Even when you "walk it back" as you did with your "two exilic scholars" you moved the goalposts and gave two new reasons why you had recommended them. It turns out that it is easy to show that even these new criteria are wrong. You claim they have stated:
But even this is wrong. Fortunately, the first 70 or more pages of Rainer Albertz book "Israel in Exile" is available here for free: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Israel_in_Exile/Xx9YzJq2B9wC?hl=en&gbpv=1
I wrote up a summary, but rather than lengthen the conversation here, I'll leave it to you to figure out where you went wrong.
I think that honest-hearted Witnesses will see through these attempts to cloud the issue. Not everyone will, of course. You might even be some kind of hero to the ones who won't look up things for themselves. There are people here who wish to be right at all costs, and to protect their ideology they project their issues onto anyone else with strong evidence they don't want to deal with. But as bad as it sounds, being right at all costs is still a bit better than being wrong at all costs.

Seeing it all together like that, I feel shamed for responding so directly to his nonsense. But it was the same nonsense that was already answered several times. He simply can't be trusted on this topic.

I think you meant "True" not false, since you are agreeing with me that Bryan would say that the 70 years had already ended with the return from Babylon (even though Bryan recognizes that some scholars start it in 587/6 with the "2nd [major] deportation," and end it around 516 BCE. Wright, he says, effectively doesn't end the 70 years at all (p.108), and Michael Fishbane is an example of one who supports 587/6 to 516/5 (p.112):
Some have suggested that, unlike the Chronicler, Zechariah regarded the seventy years as complete with the reconstruction of the temple in 516/515. Thus, Michael Fishbane dates the oracle of 1:12 to 520/519 and thinks it “conceivable that the anticipated fulfilment of a seventy-year oracle believed to have been effective from the second Judaean exile (in 587/6) may have actually fuelled national energies towards the restoration of the Temple.”13
Bryan does not think the 70 years is that period of time from the destruction of Jerusalem to the return to Babylon, if that's what you think he is implying. Note how he treats Jeremiah's prophecy about it (p.110-111):
Jeremiah 25 places the original prophecy in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, that is, just prior to the exile in 605. If false prophets in Judea had dismissed Jeremiah’s warning of punishment prior to the exile, false prophets in Babylon following the exile scorned the idea that it would last anything like seventy years. As a result, Jeremiah reaffirms the original prediction of seventy years of service in the form of a letter preserved in chapter 29: only when the seventy years were complete would the exile come to an end. . . . Those who have stayed behind in Judah will not be exempt from punishment. Although they have not been sent into exile for seventy years (29:16), they will nevertheless suffer a full measure of covenantal curses: “I am going to let loose on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten”
This matches his comments about Daniel's use of the 70 years (p.114):
In 9:2, Daniel understands from his reading of Jeremiah’s scroll that the exile was to last seventy years. This prompts Daniel’s prayer of repentance. The prayer is set in the first year of Darius, that is, at the passing of imperial power from the Babylonians to the MedoPersians. In the narrative, the collapse of Babylonian hegemony is the sign that points to the impending fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prediction that Jerusalem would be desolate for seventy years.
It's curious that he seems to believe that Daniel is reinterpreting the 70 years as 70 x 7=490, but significantly counts it as 49x10=490, possibly referring to the fact that the first answer to exile with reference to Jerusalem itself was only 49 years (until the first 49-year Jubilee via Cyrus), but that there would a full 10 Jubilees before the final week of years and full restoration. Bryan won't go along completely with this interpretation but refers to it as significant.  If that count is from 587 to 538, this is exactly 49 years.
Further, the significance of the first forty-nine years in the 490-year scheme goes beyond the fact that it is the first of ten jubilees. The author seems also to see the completion of the first jubilee as corresponding to the end of the first of seven seventy-year periods.20 This is indicated by the fact that the seventy years begins with the desolation of Jerusalem according to the word of the Lord (9:2) but that the first jubilee begins with the word of the Lord concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem (9:25).21(p.115)
[footnote] 21The referent of the “word” concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Dan 9:25 is disputed but is best understood as a designation of Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding the restoration of Jerusalem in Jer 30–31, which follows the prophecy in chapter 29 of the city’s desolation. So, e.g., Ernest Lucas, Daniel, ApOTC (Nottingham: Apollos, 2002), 243. Lucas dates the oracles of desolation to 605 BCE (Jer 25:12) and 597 BCE (Jer 29:10), preceding the oracles of restoration, which date to 587 (Jer 30:18–22, 31:38–40). Bergsma defends the view that the “word” refers to the edict of Cyrus that permitted the return of the exiles (“Persian Period as Penitential Era,” 58–60).
So even if Bryan doesn't fully accept this interpretation, he realizes that if one were to count from the destruction of Jerusalem to the edict of Cyrus, this would only be about 49 years, and would in fact match the first 49 year period of the 10.
Curious. When I think of a clown I think of those dressed up at a rodeo or circus who create diversions so that the audience doesn't realize the seriousness of a blunder or potential disaster. I have noticed that most of your posts are clownish in this sense of trying to create a diversion. But they are also laughably immature and unscholarly, which I guess would also qualify as clownish.
But you are being dishonest again, or at least manipulative with your language. Here's why:
I asked you very clearly. I asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who supports the WTS chronology, even within 2 years of it. And, I also asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who deviates from the standard archaeological evidence, even by as much as two years.:
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
I asked for any one scholar. You answered very clearly that you will give me two:
And now you call me a clown because you were devious and were caught? Do you think that all WItnesses are so stupid that we can't look things up and read for ourselves?
 
 

I find your words to be dishonest and manipulative. You pretend that there are "respective chronologies" represented here. There is only one chronology represented here. All the referenced sources, dozens of them, give mostly consistent opinions about a single chronology. It's a single chronology that all of them consider definitive enough to pinpoint the various deportation, destruction, and construction events. They understand the meaning of a "definitive" or "Absolute NB Chronology" or else there would be no structure for all of them to agree upon the dates of those events, within a year or two.
Opinions about which of those fixed dates should be interpreted as important to the 70 years prophecy doesn't change the archaeological evidence for a fixed chronology, that all of them accept.
If after all these years, you do not yet understand why scholars might consider either or both of these two dates, then you are being dishonest in associating yourself with the word scholar. I note that several persons have explained it to you over the years, but you still claim to be vexed and troubled over why this 12 month difference is possible. And it's such a simple explanation, too. The scholars who state a preference for either 586 or 587 are not confused, why are you?
Making such a ludicrous statement is just evidence that you are hoping to play to a stupid audience. Is there a margin of error in the archaeological evidence over which year was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year? You are trying to fool people. Personally, I couldn't care less if the NB Chronology is "absolute" or not, but you still need to go back to your books if you still don't know what the term "absolute" means with respect to a chronological timeline. I'm sure that the reason you will never give the historian's definition or archaeologist's definition is because you know that the term can be used to manipulate prejudice among those who won't look it up for themselves. But this has already been looked up for you in this very topic, and the last time you brought it up under a different topic, and another time before that. So it's hard for me to believe that this is merely incompetence. What else could it be, but another example of dishonesty and manipulation?
Again, you are playing to the prejudices of people you must think are too stupid to look up information for themselves. You admit the 20 year gap between the archaeological evidence and an interpretation, and call that twenty year gap "no 'margin of error.'" Yet the Watchtower admits this gap in evidence and claims that such evidence might still show up someday in the future.
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
After admitting that the evidence is strong, and consistent, the only hope is that it's being misinterpreted or that "yet undiscovered material" could drastically alter the chronology. And yet, there are thousands of pieces of material that consistently fix the NB chronology, and new material has been published since the time that statement was made. Unfortunately, it just keeps supporting and bolstering the exact same timeline -- no exceptions. After 10,000 pieces of evidence, is there really any hope that new material will produce the drastic changes the WTS needs?
Even the WTS interpretation of the 70 years is not set in stone. The same book says:
*** kc p. 189 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed.
And, of course, if you really study the various Bible statements, most people (according to your sources) see that this is NOT the most direct understanding of the various Bible statements. And even if it were, that last quoted statement is meaningless unless the WTS wanted to use the 70 year reference of Zechariah which most likely refers to about 586 to 516, plus or minus a couple years.
There was a common thread among those last 8, the ones who differed from the usual 609/605 start and a 539 end. It was a rejection of the authority of the Bible. They often interpreted the 70 years as a prophecy that might not have even come from Jeremiah or the Chronicler, but which was supposedly imposed on the text from a much later date. Funny how those few exceptions you count on the most to promote uncertainty and doubt, actually got to those interpretations by rejecting the originality and authority of the Biblical text.
 

OK. It's 2021 now, I will move on to the second part of your answer, which is even more incorrect.
I asked:
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
You answered:
JSTOR gives me a couple of references that show you are wrong. The first is : https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1371.2018.222705
The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile Author(s): Steven M. Bryan Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 137, No. 1 (Spring 2018), pp. 107-126
I quote from page 108, where Bryan shows no problem with the following date for the destruction of Jerusalem:
". . . the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/86" (p.108)
He is also aware that some scholars have made a point about the 70 year period from the (second exile and) destruction of the temple by Babylon (587/6) to the reconstruction in 516/515 since this also is a 70-year period (which he does not accept as the period referenced by Jeremiah, which he says had already been recognized as fulfilled.) [Note that C.F.Whitley, another example from Niles' "Appendix C" is a proponent of 586 BCE to 516 BCE, with full knowledge that 586 BCE refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and 516 to the reconstruction under Haggai/Zerubbabel.]
So your reference to Steven M Bryan is a failure.
Now to Rainer Albertz. Without looking, I have already come to trust that this was also just an empty claim.
So, here it is. Not surprisingly, you failed at this one too. Here is his chronology from the book:
Israel in Exile --The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. by Rainer Albertz · 2003

Note: "conquest of Jerusalem, 2d deportation (July / August 587)." He sees that the Bible chronology fits the standard archaeological foundation for the chronology. These dates are also 20 years off from the ones promoted by the Watchtower publications.
Of course, I'm sure you already knew both of these attempts were failures before you even provided them.

Niles, himself gives an overview of many past scholars, and he is not confused at all by the scholarship. First, of course, here are the dates he accepts, as seen in Appendix C. This applies to the second question, of course, as he is also an "Exilic" scholar, too. He apparently understands exactly how the standard dates align with the Bible chronology.

Now you mentioned Appendix A, where Nles gives an idea of the broad range of views from scholars and Bible commentators, past and present. I don't see any of them confused about the chronology of those 70 years of Babylonian domination between about 609 to 539 (plus or minus a couple of years). Most of them chose that very chronology as the interpretation of Jeremiah's 70 years. Apparently every single one of them understood that chronology to be able to place the destruction of Jerusalem in 587-586 BCE, or the larger exile (e.g. Ezekiel, et al) from 598-597 BCE. Everyone has a right to their set of Biblical interpretations for the varying uses of the term "70 years" whether literal, close, symbolic, an approximation, or even believing (as Niles himself does) that various Bible writers may have used it to refer to multiple periods. But this does not imply any confusion about the chronology.
Every one of them understood the chronology of the time of Babylonian domination, or they could not have all consistently put dates like the ones pictured above, on all the Judean events. I will repeat again: Apparently 100% of them used the date 587 or 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem. No confusion about the chronology, just different interpretations of which start and end dates to use within that fixed chronology. For those who don't know, I'll reproduce the columns from the first 3 pages:



Did I mention this? Every one of the above accepts a chronology within a couple years of the standard chronology, and every one of the above accepts a chronology that is about 20 years different from the "special chronology" that the WTS promotes.
(I add that last part about the 20-years difference, because there are people who think that 605 BCE, above, is only 2 years different from the WTS chronology of 607. It's actually 18 years different. Because the WTS publications present the above 605 date as 625 BCE.)
The last 8 listed scholars from the final two pages (not included above) discuss variations of Biblical interpretation about the 70 years, but they are not at all confused about the chronology of the period of Babylonian years of domination in the region. I'll just pick any one of them to see what they say about the period of Babylonian domination:
The first one, Anneli Aejmelaeus, we don't have to look up, because Niles already tells us she understands the significance of 587 BCE (Jeremiah 25) and 597 BCE.
So I'll pick another and then look up whether Bryan and Albertz fit the criteria of dating the destruction of Jerusalem more than two years different than 587 BCE.
Maybe next year, though. This should be my last post of 2020.
 

Someone named RR(?) was selling a book on eBay while making a claim it came from Tom Cabeen, implying it might have been printed on WT materials. I thought it was nearly impossible, having been there from 76 to 82. I got Cabeen's number through contact with his son (who went to college with my son). Cabeen was sure he had never seen the book before.
Anyway, I asked Cabeen if he knew how COJ was doing healthwise. Cabeen didn't know for sure, but told me how sad it was that COJ only tried to do the right thing when one of his Bible Study "RV's" asked him about why the WTS uses this special chronology. COJ was sure it could be defended and did his best, but, of course, discovered what anyone would discover if they were being honest and thorough. I told Cabeen that when I was tagging along with Brother Schroeder's "entourage" for an International Convention tour in 1978 that I had to stay in Athens for some extra time while Bert Schroeder went to Wiesbaden. When I was supposed to catch up with him in Wiesbaden, I was told he had alread gone to Hamburg/Copenhagen/Stockholm for some meetings (no conventions) and without any of his small entourage. The rumor was that this was about the COJ manuscript, although I couldn't know absolutely for sure. We caught up again when he came back to Hamburg then on back to London and Brooklyn. 
I told Cabeen this, and he already knew about part of it. I understand Cabeen might be biased, but he said that Schroeder had already determined to get COJ disfellowshiped several months before that convention trip. So I can believe that something like this happened with Gerard Gertoux. Gertoux seemed willing to discuss anything except 587 BCE, which made him suddenly clam up. 

Gerard Gertoux would love to side with the Watchtower's chronology wherever possible, and has looked at some of the potentially "weaker" evidence here and there and claimed that there might be room for agreement with the Watchtower's dates.
Although he is a WItness, he has studied the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian chronology and has realized that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar cannot be placed in 607. As you can see here, he puts it in 587 BCE.
https://www.academia.edu/26080694/Absolute_Chronology_of_the_Ancient_World_from_1533_BCE_to_140_CE ...


(The only mistake he makes here is using the "astronomical dating" format to represent "BCE" format. But he acknowledges this. It makes the spreadsheet easier for most people to understand.)