ComfortMyPeople

So it seems you would allow, potentially, that Babylon's 70-year domination of these nations around them could start when Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605 BCE. That's a pretty late start, and if you take it down to 537, then you are already including parts of 69 years.  605, 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597  . . . that's 9 different years, so on to 587 represents 19 different years, 577 represents 29 different years, etc., etc., until 537 represents 69 different years. We also have another potential year or so, based on how we read Daniel 1:1, which would represent 70 years.
And this is only referring to how Babylon affected Judea. Jeremiah doesn't say that the 70 years started only with Judea, did it?
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time. The desolation that occurs upon the land of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) was not to be inflicted by Judea, but by the nations around Babylon, just as the servitude of the nations to Babylon was not dependent on when the punishment on Judea would begin or end.
(Jeremiah 25:14) 14 For many nations and great kings will make slaves of them,. . . And, as "Arauna" has already pointed out, this word "desolation" which is said here to come upon Babylon at the end of their 70 years does not necessarily refer to literal absence of all inhabitants, either. In fact, Babylon remained a metropolis into Christian times. But other nations dominated over them, just as they had once dominated over other nations, including Judea.
You think the Watchtower's view about Isaiah's prophecy is speculative? Do you think it's wrong? Do you think they were just trying to make things fit in those statements from "Isaiah's Prophecy"? It's curious that the Watchtower publications would perfectly agree with Carl Jonsson in this regard, but they did not change it in the online version, or the Watchtower Library CD, the way the "Insight" book has already been changed in several online articles. As far as I can tell, this is still the WT view, and I happen to agree with it -- not because Carl Jonsson agrees -- but because it fits the Bible's evidence. If you think you have a better explanation and this is only WT speculation, then please share your ideas.
Also, why do you think that proposing a correction to the current doctrine is the same as defaming the WT? Isn't it true that if you see someone taking a false step, the loving thing to do is to speak up. otherwise you are complicit in the error, right?

I checked back into the topic and noticed that no one singled anyone out until "scholar JW" came onto the topic to complain about Carl Jonsson. I can't tell what you mean when you say that "others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of . . .  intellectual perception." It seems to me they don't, but why would it matter? Remember, again, that no matter who anyone says they are or what they claim about themselves, that a discussion forum should be about evidence, and a Bible discussion usually gives additional weight to Bible evidence if there is a contradiction. (I don't see a contradiction, so I'm happy with the Bible evidence, and happy that it is corroborated by archaeological and historical evidence, too.)
That does not follow. I didn't concern myself with the particular section I posted in. I just found a similar topic and clicked on "create new topic." That way you don't have to got through the entire menu to post. I definitely was not attempting to single out one person, because I remember what made me think of starting this topic. 
I don't get this idea of singling out someone. (Nor do I know how it goes against all Jesus taught. Surely you are not saying that Jesus hated those whom he selected to speak with.) Surely not "scholar JW" as he wasn't involved in this back in April when I first posted this. As I recall, it was out of respect for something that "Arauna" had said, claiming basically the same thing she has repeated more recently: that those who argue against our chronology (like me) do so, not out of respect for the Bible itself, but out of a desire to embarrass the "slave" or to discredit 1914. I wanted to show that it's the Bible verses themselves that we need to respect on this topic. This is why the first page touches on several Bible passages that still have not been addressed by opposers of the ideas found in these scriptures.
Hardly, I have rejected dozens of ideas from those who reject the Watchtower chronology. I certainly do not accept all that Carl Jonsson has written, and I thought immediately that AlanF goes "beyond the things written" to try to pin down a specific 6-month period for the Jews to have returned and laid the temple foundations. (Although in reading more carefully I see that he was actually OK with a limited range of dates, too, but was explaining why he had a preference that came down on the side of 538 vs 537 for this event.) I freely admit that AlanF and Carl Jonsson and Ann O'maly clearly have much more knowledge of the ancient astronomy and artifacts that I do. I will learn and be corrected from any and all resources who offer better evidence than what I have seen, JWs, ex-JWs, non-JWs, experts. But I trust that the Bible is correct about these 70 years, even if we must admit that we don't really know every detail about the month it started and the month it ended. 
Also, where does it say that Jesus taught against defending those who reject Watchtower chronology? Jesus himself rejected Watchtower chronology well in advance of its appearance. In fact, he seemed to anticipate its appearance. Almost the entire 24th and 25th chapter of Matthew is a rejection of Watchtower chronology. We've covered this before and for here, it's off topic. But, out of respect for these important words of Jesus himself, I'd be happy to start another topic on whether Jesus anticipated Watchtower-style chronology and eschatology in Matthew 24.
I can if I'm honest. I have no problem with the 70 years running from 607 to 537, nor do I have a problem with them running from 608 to 538, or 609 to 539. I don't know for sure if they need to total exactly 70 years, but this is very likely, and the evidence we know about, including the Bible evidence, makes it very possible. I don't even reject the portions of our chronology that are stated without any evidence. The only portions of our chronology that I reject are those where the Bible evidence creates a very probable contradiction with the secular dates the WT has promoted. And for anyone who asks I always give permission that anyone can share my opinions; you don't even need to credit me. After all, I'm semi-anonymous, and anyone has a right to share the opinions of others. You could even write a book if you wanted based 100% on my opinions and I couldn't care less if you credit me or not. You could accept 25% of my opinions and mix them with 75% of your own. Why should I worry how and why opinions get shared on the Internet. I'm not trying to control anything. There is a much better chance of someone correcting my opinions if they are shared, than if I keep them to myself. Of course, I'd still have to say that Ad1914 has tried to do something very un-smart with my posts. Looks like they stopped re-posting when they finally noticed that they'd have to actually read through 1,800 long and repetitive posts to find things they'd be willing to use.
I agree that it's always best if one has solid proof for an objection. Sometimes however we find ourselves weighing one person's speculation against another person's speculation, and the goal is "best evidence" because "solid proof" does not exist. Best evidence sometimes shows up when we begin to remove conclusions that were based on contradictory evidence, logical fallacies, false premises, etc. Still, I'll look back through your posts (and you-know-who's posts) and see if I can see if there are any resources I can bring to bear that are relevant to your ideas and objections, which you might think have only been met with speculation. Don't know if my input can help much, though.
Now I see where you misunderstood me. Yes, we can be very confident that 607 BCE is NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, but this does not mean it can't be the start of the 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecy. That's because there is nothing in the book of Jeremiah that says that the 70 years must start with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. It makes more sense that it starts with his accession year at the very latest, and just as likely that it started under his father, Nabopolassar, when Babylon began a domination that replaced Egypt and Assyria.
It's not farfetched. At most I'd say it can't be more than 2 years off. That's pretty good for a date that more than 2,600 years in the past.
Not at all. 609 is not more than 2 years off, either, in my opinion.

Not so sure why you wanted to pick me out of the crowd. I think it was 605, immediately after his father died. He did manage to get back home probably faster than anyone had ever managed that trip before him.
 Both dates are secular chronology. But again, I have no problem with 607 being the start of the 70 years. I never have. I have always thought that it was close enough, within a year or two, and that even the term "70 years" need not have ever meant an exact number, to the very month, or even the very year. In fact, the expression was already previously in use by Isaiah:
(Isaiah 23:15) . . .seventy years, the same as the days of one king. . . Whether this meant "lifetime" as in "lifespan" of a king, or the span of the Babylonian period of greatest domination, as the "Isaiah's prophecy" book points out, it doesn't have to mean that the prophecy fails if that period of greatest domination was 67 to 69 years, instead of 70 exactly.
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
“These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What years would you @Foreigner or perhaps @scholar JW or @allensmith28 use to date that 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination as applied to Tyre? Would you start it with the fall of Jerusalem's Temple, or does it make more sense to start it with the earliest years when Babylon was tramping about in the region, beginning to prove its dominance as the next world power in the region?
Besides, you don't know just how long Nebuchadnezzar was the king's representative in Hattu. At what point did Babylon begin controlling Tyre's economy by taking control of key trade routes? (Isaiah 23) At what point did Babylon begin dominating economic and political decisions made in the Hattu region (Syria/Israel/Judah) simply through fear even before the first physical depredations of the land and people were made? I don't think we need to look for a specific event that begins the 70 years of domination, and no specific event that ends the domination. It's pretty easy to get the general time period. (And 2 Chron 36:21 seems to pinpoint the end.)  It certainly makes sense that the prediction of the imminent fall of Nineveh would have been the end of the Assyrian power in the eyes of Jerusalem/Judea. Did it wait until the final and actual fall? And you are right, there appears to be a couple of years when the Egyptian power seemed on par with Babylon's. Egypt was the king of the south at the same time that Babylon was the king of the north. Judeans would continue to choose between them for many years. But even Egypt and Assyria together couldn't stand up against Babylon at Carchemish, as proven in 605. Was Jehovah able to discern the dominance of Babylon even a couple years before 605, while Nebuchadnezzar was still a prince and general?
We could even ask if the devastation and desolation of a city needed to be literal in every respect. Or did prophecy often use poetic language, even poetic hyperbole, in making memorable warnings? Was it even necessary that Nineveh, Jerusalem, Tyre, or Babylon ever be completely desolated? Or was it a warning of what Jehovah was capable of doing as the true sovereign (king) of the world?  For example, In his pronouncement against Assyrian Nineveh, Nahum includes "fear" as part of what devastates and desolates her, yet we know that Nineveh was never totally depopulated:
(Nahum 2:8-11, NWT) 8 And Ninʹe·veh, from the days [that] she [has been], was like a pool of waters; but they are fleeing. “Stand still, YOU men! Stand still!” But there is no one turning back.
9 Plunder silver, YOU men; plunder gold; as there is no limit to the [things in] arrangement. There is a heavy amount of all sorts of desirable articles.
10 The city is empty, desolate, devastated!
Their hearts melt in fear, their knees buckle, their hips tremble; (NWT 2013)
All their faces are flushed. 11 Where is the lair of lions, and the cave that belongs to the maned young lions, where the lion walked and entered, where the lion’s cub was, and no one was making [them] tremble?
Just as we often must do with other prophecies, I sometimes put a softer edge on the chronology in prophecy (unless the prophecy itself tells us otherwise). Dates and numbers can be rounded, just as this has often been explained for other prophecies discussed in our publications.

Thanks for moving back to the topic. Those are bold assertions. I have not read James Penton on this topic, so I can't speak to it, but I have read COJ. Maybe not the whole book, but I've read about 100 pages and skimmed about 200 more. I had already noticed that the Watchtower's chronology is based on pseudo-archaeology, without COJ's help, but that wasn't the problem. I had taken an much bigger interest from the perspective of the Biblical evidence alone.
Also, I know that every time you have ever made a general claim that his treatise was "flawed" I notice that you never had any specific points that proved this.
Also, you should say what you mean by the fact that 607 B.C.E. is Biblically supported. In the first few posts of this topic, I explained what I meant by that question. You have suggested that 607 could be significant, but that you do not necessarily agree that the event in 607 is the same event that the Watchtower describes for that year. I think you give it pretty much the same significance however. 
I have mentioned before that I also think that 607 is very close (within two or three years) of a Biblically supported event, the start of the 70 years. This year must be very close to the start of the 70 years for Babylon's greatest domination, according to the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book, and which fits the prophecy of Jeremiah 25 (as also quoted in the same "Isaiah" book.) The only problem is the fact that the secular 607 date is closer to Nabopolassar's 19th year and not Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, which are about 20 years apart. Of course, you have already pointed this out, and have suggested that the similarity of the names and a potential confusion between the two names resulted in the Bible's use of the term Nebuchadnezzar when the Bible could have meant the same person we speak of as Nabopolassar. This is a theory that is based on a very thin and murky foundation. You have made use of errors found in 19th century works, errors in the pseudo-chronology of the book of Judith, and the possible confusion between the two names as your best evidence so far. There is also the "coincidence" of the 18th/19th year that you have brought up.
If I understand you correctly, you have also proposed a possible theory that the actual "destruction" of Jerusalem should be moved back another 11 or so years before the Jerusalem event that the Bible describes in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. I don't know if you have been as clear about this theory, or perhaps it was just me. It appeared that you were focusing on what secular historians date to about 598.

I obviously don't have any say in whether people are banned or not. I got a message from a moderator on two different occasions in the last two years asking whether I thought that you had gone too far with insulting and abusive speech and should be banned. My answer was always that you should NOT be banned, because the Internet is a rough and tumble world. Banning someone rarely does any good on the Internet anyway, as there are a million and one ways to get around it: make new accounts, map an account to a different IP address, use temporary email addresses that various services create to make this easy to accomplish, etc., etc. 
Any who venture into the world of Internet discussion forums must learn quickly that public statements will result in public ridicule even when those statements are right. It's up to mature people to distinguish right from wrong, even where someone's use of language might offend us. It's not always a pleasant experience for some, but as @scholar JW has indicated, he found this particular exchange enjoyable. It's an acquired taste. Expressive language, filthy imagery, even taboo words actually have their place in dialogue. I think it was pointed out that even the Bible does this, and the NWT 2013 Revised version explains in several of its footnotes that it has cleaned up some of this filthy or insulting imagery that appears in the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.
 

AlanF, I think that you will be asked to avoid the kind of insulting language and imagery. I am sure that other forums have allowed an escalation of this type to reach greater heights/depths of such. One of the things that has made this particular forum more palatable, according to several people here, myself included, is the fact that all perspectives have been able to come together WITHOUT these rough edges.
 

The image was a bit small. I have page 208 in text format which generally uses the spacing and line break style of the original, with original spellings:
------------------------------------------------------
[resur-]rection of the dead, and on the triumphant era of blessed-
ness, which immediately ensues.   I would again impress
on the mind of the reader, that these events depend upon
the fulfilment of the chronological periods ; and that as
the " new heaven and new earth," which are created at
the second judgment, and at the time of the general resur-  
rection, necessarily synchronise with Daniel's era of blessed-  
ness ;  so must the " new heaven and new earth " be con-  
sidered as succeeding the '' old heaven and old earth," or
the tyrannical monarchies of the old dispensation.   The  
times of these monarchies are fixed by the " seven times "
of the symbolic image, and by the 1335 years of the Mo-
hammedan Imposture ;  and unless it can be shown that
erroneous data have been assumed, on which these chro-
nological periods have been founded, then must it be
maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the
period of the second judgment ; and, commencing in 1873,
are attended by the sitting of that judgment, and by the
general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates
with the " seven times " of the monarchies, and with the
1335 Mohammedan years, in 1917.  It may be further ob-
served, that it is a judgment of the " wicked " only ; be-
cause the righteous rise first, and attend Christ " at his
coming."  Death, hell and the sea, and their dead, sub-
sequently stand in judgment.
     The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his se-
cond coming, foretels all these events ;  and upon that
memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down
of Jerusalem, and " that the Jews should be led captive
into all nations," during the times of the Gentiles, ob-
viously refers to the sitting of the second judgment, at
which he is to appear as the Judge. " Heaven and earth,"
or the dispensation of the tyrannical empires, which were
the instruments of the captivity and desolation of his peo-
ple, he declares " shall pass away,"---the very token of the
second judgment,--- " but my words shall not pass away."
Verily I say unto you, " This generation shall not pass
away till all be fulfilled."  Whatever, therefore, be the [p.209]
criticisms upon these extraordinary words . . .
--------------------------------------------------

Apologies to @scholar JW but it's pretty clear that the Watchtower had already given away the answer, back in 1983, which shows clearly that AlanF is correct, as was Ann, Carl Jonsson, and many others:
*** w83 8/1 p. 20 par. 15 Israel and the “Times of the Gentiles” ***
15 In the dream that Jehovah God sent to his “servant,” King Nebuchadnezzar, there were “seven times” that were decreed from heaven. How do these connect up with “the times of the Gentiles” or coincide and become identical with them?  
THUS, EXAMPLES which would only make sense if the connection/link/etc means an "equating."
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” ***
Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. *** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***
Very noteworthy was the striking accuracy with which that book pointed to the end of the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24) It showed (on pages 83 and 189) that this 2,520-year period, during which Gentile or non-Jewish nations would rule the earth without interference by any kingdom of God, began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Even earlier, however, C. T. Russell wrote an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” It was published in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, and therein Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it! Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before those times expired. *** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. *** w15 6/15 p. 22 par. 12 Live in Harmony With the Model Prayer—Part I ***
12 When the time approached for God’s Kingdom in the hands of Jesus to start ruling from heaven, Jehovah helped his people to understand the timing of events. In 1876, an article written by Charles Taze Russell was published in the magazine Bible Examiner. That article, “Gentile Times: When Do They End?,” pointed to 1914 as a significant year. The article linked the “seven times” of Daniel’s prophecy with “the appointed times of the nations” spoken of by Jesus.—Dan. 4:16; Luke 21:24. *** w84 4/1 p. 16 par. 4 Heed God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***
4 That year 1914—what of it? Over a century ago, C. T. Russell (who became the first president of the Watch Tower Society) linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Luke 21:24, Authorized Version) Writing in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He also was a joint publisher of the 1877 book Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World, which showed (on pages 83 and 189) that the 2,520-year period of Gentile world domination without interference by any kingdom of God began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Similarly, the Watch Tower issue of March 1880 stated: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.”  

Thanks @Ann O'Maly and it looks like thanks also to @AlanF for posting the pages in question. Of course, for anyone who really wanted to know, they already could have found enough of the content of those pages that had already been posted and discussed by both "AlanF" and a person calling himself "Earnest" on another forum and then again by AlanF on a separate blog at corior.blogspot.
On a major forum, AlanF had even exposed some of the content that @scholar JW has already made reference to here on this forum, under this current topic. (Referring to correspondence with WTS, COJ, Franz, etc.) A person on that same forum named "Earnest" had even quoted sufficient portions of those two paragraphs from page 208, which are still there to read for anyone who wishes. They can just search Google, for example, with phrases like the following (including the quote marks):
"john aquila brown" "Ray Franz, Carl Jonsson"
But I had also seen that AlanF had even quoted from a few other pages of Volume II, including the the near context of page 208 (pps. 68-9, 135, 152, 206). Just google:
"Part 5: Sanitizing the Past"
I also have the book "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, volume 3. It contains a very good discussion of John Aquila Brown in the context of all his own proposed time periods compared with others being presented at the time. All in all, these resources have made it clear to me that Jonsson had it right from both a high-level perspective and a detail level perspective. It even reminded me that the April 2018 Watchtower (p.30,31) may have had this very type of exchange in mind when they spoke of allowing "apostates" and other critics to sow distrust through a forum that allows dialogue. The "Proclaimers" book gives the appearance that it may have actually been written in such a way as to engage in dialogue with "apostate" reasoning, on this specific point, as an attempt to offer a kind of "gotcha." Something similar had been tried in the Appendix of the "Kingdom Come" book in 1981, and two Watchtower articles in 2011. Unfortunately, I think that these particular attempts backfired on the WTS, and I'm sure they do not wish for this kind of embarrassment to show up again.  

Yikes! I run off for a day, and someone throws a party. I almost hate to interrupt, but it does look like you responded with 2 Chron 36, which I must admit, does appear to be the Biblical evidence against the claim I made when i said;  ' But nowhere does the Bible say that the full and complete desolation measured from some specific point in time, was to begin counting off the 70 year period. In fact, there is no Bible passage that says the entire 70 years of Babylonian domination was equal to be equal in length to a 70 year period of full desolation.'
It's almost ironic that a side conversation is going on about how John Aquila Brown had made a 'connection' between his 1260-year "Gentile Times" ending in 1844 and his 2,520-year period of the "Four Tyrannical Kingdoms" ending in 1917. John Aquila Brown made a connection without equating the periods. I think even "scholar JW" agrees with that much. And here we have 2 Chronicles speaking of a period of 70 years spoken by Jeremiah, and he connects them with a period when the land would pay off its sabbaths during all the days that the land would lay desolate. He appears to connect them, but does not equate them.
It seems to be similar to how a prophetic type in Jonah connects his being in the belly of a large fish for 3 days, and how the fulfillment is tied to the idea that Jesus would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. There is an emphasis on the 3 day and 3 night period, even though the direct connection in the case of Jesus was more likely a reference to Jesus being in the grave all of Saturday, plus a few hours on Friday afternoon, and a few short hours on Sunday morning. Maybe 36 hours instead of 72 (3x24).
The prophetic period of "70 years" loomed large in these days and may have connected several periods in a loose way, especially since we know that the desolations that started as early as 604 ultimately resulted in more and more abandoned fields, abandoned cities, attacked cities, attacked populace, captured populace, two or three occasions of taking sacred utensils from Jerusalem, two or three sieges of Jerusalem. Finally, the desolation was effectively complete somewhere between Neb's 19th year and Neb's 24th year.
Nebuchadnezzar was a kind of abomination that caused desolations, not just a single desolation. The idea is used in the plural almost as often as it is used in the singular. Even when used in the singular it is often paired with plural places --desolate places-- so that the idea of plural desolations is still obvious. Notice how this fact is hidden in the NWT translation of Daniel 9:2:
(Daniel 9:2) 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. But the Hebrew does not say 'desolation' חָרְבָּה of course. It says 'desolations' חָרְבֹות . As the ESV, quoted earlier says:
(Daniel 9:2, ESV) in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Can you see the difference?
Of course, as I've said before, I'm not a stickler for starting and ending these 70 years as of a specific certain event in the life of Neb., and I'm not so convinced that the 70 years must stop instantly with the event that freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity: i.e., the removal of Babylonian dominance by its capture in the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, this is the primary sense in Jeremiah, but I think it's clear that the 70-year period of that prophecy became a focus of several associated time periods that would find fulfillment either within that period, or because of that time period.
One of the "desolations" (In Hebrew, it's also the word for "drought") was the spiritual "drought" caused by the desolation of the Temple. That particular "drought" must have been seen as connected with the 70 years of desolation, too, even though the connected  70-year period would have run from about Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year up to the first few years of Darius. (see: Zechariah, Haggai)
At any rate, the evidence on the ground is that we can only find about 50 years between the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 19th year and the overthrow of Babylon in the first year of Cyrus. By evidence on the ground, I mean, literally, the tens of thousands of dated contract tablets, with or without the multiple examples of other evidence that will also mesh perfectly with these tablets. If we allow two or three extra years after the first year of Cyrus and start with the desolation in Neb's 8th year, we could get about 63 years, but still not 70. If we go all the way back to the time when the Babylonian power proved itself as the next power over Assyria (or even a combination of Assyria and Egypt), then we get a complete 70 years, and it perfectly fits Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years were "for Babylon" even though they would "effect'' the fulfillment of the desolations upon Judea and Jerusalem. I don't see a contradiction between 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25, even if the focus is different. 

With respect to @Arauna's insightful comments about truth and motive, I was thinking about ways in which the entire 607 doctrine has been affected.
At the very core of the 607 theory is the idea that we can choose the secular dates 539 to 537 without choosing the secular date 587 for Neb's 19th year, or 598 for Neb's 8th year. Yet, our publications consistently leave out the fact that all the data and evidence that we accept for 539 is precisely the same data and evidence that gives us 587 and 598. Yet we have renamed those secular years by adding 20 to each of them, but without adding 20 to 539. Most of us therefore have the impression that there is evidence and data that our 607 date is correct, and we find ourselves defending the evidence and data used for 539 and not realising we are defending the same evidence for 587 and 598. Our motive is good, but we don't even realise we are withholding evidence because we are so motivated to defend something we think must be true. Another idea that is at the very core of the 607 theory is that there were 70 years of complete desolation where the land would be without an inhabitant, and that this can only have occurred from the time of Jerusalem's fall until shortly after 539, or 537. But this idea does not have scriptural support as already shown in earlier posts in this thread. Note that Neb's 19th year is the Biblical date of Jerusalem's fall. So notice the claim we use, and then compare it with the Bible evidence. *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
Hence the count of the 70 years of desolation must have begun about October 1, 607 B.C.E., ending in 537 B.C.E. By the seventh month of this latter year the first repatriated Jews arrived back in Judah, 70 years from the start of the full desolation of the land.—2Ch 36:21-23; Ezr 3:1. But notice the Biblical evidence that we always leave out:
(Jeremiah 52:15, 16) 15 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. He also took the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon as well as the rest of the master craftsmen. 16 But Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers. (Jeremiah 52:28-30) 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . . (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. . . If the land was completely desolate as of Neb's 18th year or 19th year, then how could another exile happen in the 23rd year?
The motive for withholding this tidbit of information appears to be that it makes it easier to claim that the land was completely and fully desolate for 70 years starting in Neb's 18th or 19th year, even though another exile took place 4 or 5 years later.
Then we also have the Biblical evidence from Daniel and Zechariah and Jeremiah several other scriptures that has never been addressed. And when we finally get to the overall motive for skewing the evidence, support for 1914, we find that there are several more verses that suffer mistranslation or which are always completely withheld. Why, for instance, do we never mention that Revelation 11:2 is a clear reference to the appointed times of Luke 21:24?

This is where Freedom and sanity, and peace come from .... when you disregard people who have proved they have no credibility whatsoever ... and STOP BEING AFRAID OF DYING. 
Every living thing that has DNA dies ... and there have never been any exceptions... not one... from a mosquito to  a Brontosaurus ... and we did not exist at all for about 14 BILLION years ... and my guess is no one worried about it.
We should serve Jehovah because it is the right thing to do .... not because someone is generating artificial panics to get the troops to march faster.

I don't think you can be talking about Gerard Gertoux developing an ego and leaving the truth, because really we have absolutely no proof of that. The only thing that is evident from his own writings is that he believes Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE. So I am not sure what you mean by trust. That we can not trust him because of that? As far as I am aware he has never criticized the WT and he has not advertised his research regarding that subject, in fact he has been laying pretty low, and not really wanting to talk about it with anyone.
Why is that dangerous thinking? Isn't that just stating a fact? I didn't say that we should be complacent, but I do think we should be realistic.
I think there is a danger though in promising people something that will happen in their life time, and then it not coming true. My best friend, a long time pioneer, left because she lost faith that this is the true religion because of promises that were "without a doubt true" but that never happened and that kept getting explained away. I personally feel it's a little presumptions to claim these things. Then some will say..."well, they were in it for the wrong reason, that's why they left". But what is it we are feeding in people when we put such emphasis on the imminent end? We are doing exactly that, we are encouraging serving Jehovah for the wrong reason. Not because he is a God deserving our exclusive devotion, but because of what we can get out of him very soon. I wonder, did Jesus have in mind attracting people to the Kingdom in such a way? Yes, of course we tell them to "repent" because the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near, yes it is good we are not complacent like other religions, yes it is good we keep a sense of urgency, and yes it is good to keep our hope alive and in front of us, but to make certain claims (or I should say the Slave, we just repeat what they say) which are blatantly erroneous, makes fools of others and us, and can cause people to stumble. Perhaps this is a test. How loyal are we to Jehovah "despite" man's errors. Another good friend of mine, a very zealous faithful sister, is not allowing the errors of man to slow her down, or stumble her. She  waves her hand in dismissal at the new explanation to why Armageddon hasn't come yet, aka the 'overlapping generation'. Pretty much in a similar manner as Br. Herd did in the December broadcast when talking about our "past" understanding of the generation. He seems to think we've finally got it. She thinks it's nonsense. Her motto is; when it comes it comes, in the meantime I am here to do my job. And if I die so what?  Hopefully I will be resurrected. And if not, I won't even care, will I?
When the Slave admits they've sometimes had wrong expectations, that doesn't mean we have to have those same wrong expectations too, does it?

Hmmmm......I beg to differ. How about we both ask a number of friends a simple question at the KH this Sunday or in a field service group: "do you know how to explain why we believe 1914 and 607?"
In any case, it looks like you are trying to evade the question by implying that understanding how we come to 1914 (and 607) requires too much time and that one has better things to do (which actually confirms what I said, that most don't really know) and also you are detracting from the question by implying that those who do this, are really just trying to discredit the Slave and score points for themselves on a discussion forum.
I can't say anything about what was said under another heading, but I do know that the question that arose a number of times was if WT accepts 537, then why does it not accept 587, if both dates are verifiable by the same astronomical/historical l sources.
I am not here to score points either, (and if anyone is, well then they are to be pitied because what real value does collecting points from complete strangers who have no impact on your real, outside the internet, life have?). I am not trying to prove the Slave are deceivers,  but how would you explain to someone what I posted earlier but you never commented on. It was in answer to your comment:  " Faith is important - but Jehovah knew that us simple folks - we always need small steps to look forward to and he lovingly gave it to us.... and what is more.. the proof of the pudding is the eating....... world events since 1914 has proven that it is a 'reality'...... We will soon be seeing the last prophecies regarding Babylon the great, the call to peace and security...and the 8th king in action.... as a matter of fact - religions seem to be riding the beast as we speak...."  And my reply was:
"BUT that does not mean the dates and numbers and lengths of periods we simple folks put together are always correct are they? What has happened to the millions that were not supposed to die? (they did). What has happened to the generation that was not supposed to pass away? (they have, practically) What has happened to the children that were not supposed to even finish school in this system? (they did, and they have children of their own). What has happened to the world that can't get any worse? (it did, and still might)".
Religions seem to be riding the beast as we speak, but there have been many signs before that, that actually turned out NOT to be the sign
To be fair, this topic here "607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported" really does call for secular,/scholarly knowledge because it is an academic subject.  No matter how noble feelings are, they still have no impact on whether something is true or false. And I cannot somehow connect a date with love for Jehovah, especially if there is a possibility that the date could be completely erroneous.
I think those people have been paying attention to the signs on the ground. Probably since they first learned about them.
Indeed, the Amaharets.  And it is a consolation to me that even if we are totally wrong about Christ's enthronement in 1914 and it takes another 2000 years for Armageddon to come, surely Jehovah will look upon us that we, the Amaharets, did our best to follow in the footsteps of Christ, by preaching the Kingdom and by living our life in harmony with God's moral standards. Surely Jehovah will recognize that the majority of Christ's sheep are unable to verify or understand everything the Bible, or what the Slave presents, like the Beoreans were able to. I can't imagine a missionary in Peru being overly concerned about Neo Babylonian chronology. Surely it is sufficient that these ones have verified the fundamental truths. And those who desire and are able to delve deeper into the academic side of this particular issue, and in all honesty find discrepancies with 607, surely they will not be disqualified? Thankfully, Jehovah is the reader of hearts. However, if those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility to disseminate spiritual food to the Amaharets, and they feed falsehood, they will be judged severely, for obvious reasons. So really, we have nothing to be worried about. For the Amaharets and those "academics/scholars" who are pure in heart and motive it's a win win situation isn’t it?


 

Dear TrueTomHarley,
I focus on the most important words you wrote.
My criticism of the "governing body" has nothing to do with "lack of respect" or "denigration".
I do not understand why you have to confuse a (even strong) criticism with the lack of respect.
What we can not understand is that we have two different concepts of respect.
Always saying "yes, you're right" is a form of respect? Really?
Or is it a form of formal worship?
I have respect for those who have a great responsibility, but this does not mean that they have to recognize everything they say or do.
Finally it is a question of balance.
I try to explain the point.
In my study of the Bible I come to understand some things (maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong but in honest conscience).
As long as the interpretations of the governing body are secondary, I can also "make ends of nothing".
When some interpretations in my opinion (perhaps wrong) are not in harmony with the Scripture, what should I do?
According to you I should "shut up" because "they deserve respect".
My total and unconditional respect is addressed to the Word of God. it's clear?
This means that if a teaching goes against the Word of God (even if done in good faith) I give precedence to the Word of God.
I have dedicated myself to Jehovah, do you understand?
I have not dedicated myself to the "faithful and discreet slave", not to "jw.org" not to "warwick" or anyone else.
I have learned from the Bible that you must study personally and accurately, and you must draw your conclusions once you have meditated and prayed.
My conclusions (right or wrong) are that many brothers have become "idolaters" because they have elevated "commands of men" over the same Bible!
The things you wrote are true only in a small part.
I did not look for a probable idolatry and then find it in the Scriptures.
the opposite has happened.
To see that many brothers take a picture with the character of the governing body, or that they buy the medallion with the inscription "YHWH", or that they buy flags or t-shirts with the inscription "jw.org" it makes me sick (it's true ) but it does not make me stumble.
Do you know why I do not stumble over these things?
Because I had read in the Bible that this would happen.
I speak of biblical understanding.
mine is not "a protest" or a revolution.
Mine is exclusively a biblical research and my attempt is to bring attention to the Bible.
Also I would like to point out something.
speaking with DeeDee I wrote clearly (it's just an example) that the apostle Paul identifies the trumpet related to the spiritual resurrection as "the last trumpet".
I would be happy to have a conversation, without preconceptions, to understand if Revelation is written chronologically or not.
I have published many articles on this blog.
Has there ever been a constructive conversation?
Have we ever entered the subject in an attempt to understand what the Bible says?
Or have our "conversations" stopped at "you are not the faithful and discreet slave" or "are you an apostate" or "you can not have the biblical understanding" and similar things?
Who is the idolater?
Every day we are encouraged to "study the Bible" but what does this mean in your opinion?
Does it mean "study the Bible only if your conclusions are in harmony with the Governing Body"?
My personal experience counts for nothing and it is not because of my personal experience that I started making these articles.
On the contrary: these are my research without preconceptions, in the light of the Scriptures.
I consider the Bible the only authority and so you too.
However, there are other "authorities" that prevent you from carefully examining the Scriptures.
There are the "masters of the Law" who claim to be the only ones to understand it.
There are those who say "Yes is right" or "No, it's wrong".
Do you really believe that these articles of mine are "born" from the fact that I saw hypocrisy and idolatry in some brother?
Absolutely not.
Do you believe that I have "mounted my head"?
Absolutely not. Interpretations belong to Jehovah.
I do this because it is a responsibility.
Then, of course, you can believe what you want.
Some people (but I would dare to say "many") consider the guide (which is only a middle) as the ultimate end of worship.
The copper serpent was a loving provision by Jehovah that the people would not die but after a few years became an idol.
You are really sure that the medium that would lead us into the "promised land", did not become an idol?
You are free to think about what you want but when we turn off our faculties of perception and consider the words of men equal or superior to the Bible, this is idolatry.
Jesus, who was the most knowledgeable person ever existed, said many times "is written".
You say, practically always, "The faithful and discreet slave says" even if what he says strides with the Word of God.
Everyone makes their own assessments.
I am nobody and I can not judge anyone.
Jehovah is the just judge, only him.
If you are convinced of "studying the Bible without preconceptions", agree.
The right thing to do would be to help each other but this is not possible because every "criticism" is seen as "lack of respect".
 
 

No, I actually meant friends in the truth.
I understand, but maybe you did not read my other post to you* where I mention that I haven't seen you presenting any valid counter arguments which could convince an unbiased observer to side with your explanation. What I said was that your arguments would not stand up in trial.  It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates (not the fruit ) and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground....
How is that? As far as I know, probably more than 90% of the friends (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not understand 1914, or to be more specific, do not understand how we arrive at 1914, and don't even try.
Yes. Us simple folks need numbers. Numbers are nice. People like numbers and dates. They help to tangibly anchor ideas or situations in the stream of time. Without dates it's just not the same. Try reading a biography or a report without them. And of course not to mention the fact that dates are essential for establishing time periods in history and a billion other things. Jehovah is the arbiter of time, and is the great timekeeper. BUT that does not mean the dates and numbers and lengths of periods we simple folks put together are always correct are they? What has happened to the millions that were not supposed to die? (they did). What has happened to the generation that was not supposed to pass away? (they have, practically) What has happened to the children that were not supposed to even finish school in this system? (they did, and they have children of their own). What has happened to the world that can't get any worse? (it did, and still might) As you say, the proof is in the pudding.
So that is why, when the rubber hits the road, we need to have faith in Jehovah, not man.
(*I wish the posts were numbered so that they could be easily referenced @admin @The Librarian)

I think you might be coming to rash conclusions when you say those trying to disprove 1914 are doing so only to discredit the Slave. I am not saying no one does that, but I feel that those who honestly try to understand WT dates, and then find these dates faulty, do it the other way around. They begin to distrust the Slave on the evidence of their findings. Please don't attack me for saying this as I myself have not found proof for 607 or 587 either way. I am in a completely privileged neutral zone. I am neither for nor against. One thing I have noticed though, and excuse me if I am wrong,  (I may have missed your other posts), but it seems you have not presented any solid counter argument  against  587, only your feelings in that it's like "running after fluff", and criticism and motives of those who present arguments against 607. What you say would not stand up in a trial at all.  It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground....
I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this at all.
What I find fascinating, and puzzling at the same time though, is how some friends will immediately class others as defectors if they do not believe in 607 or 1914. To give an example, on another forum, one poster made the comment that we should be wary of this one particular JW scholar because he does not support 607. Why it is so imperative to you and others, that in order to belong to this NATION, one has to believe in some specific date? In practical terms, what on earth is the saving attribute of a date? Yes, I know it was supposed to be the establishment of God's kingdom, which is the instrument by which all things will be reconciled to God, but come on, are we to be SO fixated on a date where believing in it or not is the difference between being saved or damned? God's kingdom will accomplish all those things regardless of the date it is established, won't it? As was pointed out quite clearly in the 2017 convention video, we are dedicated to Jehovah God, not a date! Surely a date has no baring on your sentiments above about the NATION ?

I think that if beginning today, the Slave never mentioned the dates 607 or 1914  again, but merely the destruction of Jerusalem, and  God's Kingdom, no one would be upset and think we have gone apostate. Probably no one but a few who are keyed in, and those at Bethel, would even notice. In fact, the new generation of Witnesses as I have observed does not even believe Armageddon will come any time soon. (I have heard some young ones speculate around 50 years). And the generation who believed their children would not grow up in this system, but who have grand children now, have reconciled themselves with the possibility that they will die before Armageddon comes. I think this is good. Because remember, we serve Jehovah, not a date. Abraham never saw the complete fulfillment of the promise made to him either, what makes us think we have to? Don't get me wrong, it would be nice of course, but I refuse to get anxious  for a date, or even an approximate time period. You have probably seen me quote a father talking to his daughter saying "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime but lead your life as if it will come tomorrow". The father is long dead, and the daughter possibly too, as she was born in 1923. You can read her life story in  w04 12.1 Trusting in Jehovah’s Loving Care.
In any case, all this talk about the gentile times calculations are not something Russell came up with. The originator of these calculations was William Miller of the second Adventists. (of course there were others even before him, but Russell associated with Miller). So if we go and dig down to the grass roots, to find the beginning of this idea,  really, we have William Miller to thank for it. But I'm not quite comfortable with that thought. I'm not comfortable with the thought that 1914 evolved from one of the branches of Christendom!
http://www.readex.com/blog/calculating-second-coming-19th-century-america-selected-items-american-pamphlets-1820-1922

I am sure you will agree that because the Bible gives us some numbers and a chronology, it has forever been the quest of believing mankind since the death of Christ, to crack the code of His promised second coming. Especially with the beginning of Adventist movements folks have been trying to figure out the key to WHEN. Russell and his associates were also interested in when. As you probably know, Russell even used the Pyramids to try to calculate Christ's second coming. So the whole period of the Second Awakening revival was focused on figuring all this out. And from that fertile ground came OUR "magical" dates. In fact if you look,  there have been and are "magical" dates floating around all the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming_of_Christ
 
 
 

I agree. I don't know why, but @scholar JW and even some of the accounts tied to @AllenSmith have brought up this old idea that the 1914 Gentile Times doctrine was also proved to be correct through Zionist activities. I know that some people still believe this, but clearly you and I do not, and the Watchtower publications have provided a lot of good scriptural information to explain why it's not about earthly Jerusalem.
I'm guessing that "scholar JW" and "Allen Smith" bring it up because they are aware that this was the meaning of "Gentile Times" prior to 1914, and they realize that in order to say that we predicted it in advance, that something should have happened to earthly Israel. After all, the only prediction about 1914 that we can still claim to have gotten right from "decades in advance" of 1914 is the prediction that the Gentile Times would end that year. All the predictions that 1914 would be the end, and not the beginning of the times of distress had to finally be thrown away. All we had to do, of course, is change the meaning of "Gentile Times" so we could claim that we at least got that part right. There is a level of hubris, presumptuousness, haughtiness, ego, and pride which has always been a part of Bible prophecy predictions. They fail 99% of the time, which then results in either humility or dishonesty. You can guess what most religious leaders choose.
Every honest person who has looked carefully at the evidence has admitted that there is no proof for 607. If you read the "Chronology" article in the Insight book more carefully, you will realize that even the WTS is admitting that they are basing their own belief about the secular date 607 on the same defective sources. It has nothing to do with a belief related to fleshly Israel in modern times.
Yes, Russell is being brought up again and again in the publications. A kind of resurgence especially since the 2014 centenary. I'm in favor of learning from the past so as not to repeat mistakes, to choose the good and discard the bad, and learn humility, and learn how Jehovah can accomplish his purposes through imperfect people, often in ways they don't even understand at the time. We can appreciate the blessings they enjoyed, especially as they overcame so many obstacles as a very small group which has now grown to millions. But I am not in favor of re-writing history and putting a false spin on it just so we can try to attach a measure of that success to ourselves. It's like a person who longs for the days of old, their "glory days" which is fine up to a point, but loses its good, encouraging effect when they start enhancing that history with "adjusted" stories that sound more impressive.
Revelation was written to be an encouragement in all time periods when Christians sigh and groan through the present system of things, filled with war, pestilence, famine and death, and still therefore eagerly call out "Come! Lord Jesus."
Christians were given a "taste" of the glory of Jesus' kingship during the activities and proofs of the first century, and that glimpse should be enough for us to realize that we don't need to know everything that is going on behind the scenes in order to "persevere" until Jesus is manifested again at the end, the parousia (sudden, highly visible royal visitation) the synteleia (final conclusion; end of all things), the manifestation, the revelation, the judgment. He appeared "once for all time" as King and Priest according to the manner of Melchizedek, King and Priest. Revelation provides a vision, based on the glimpses of the glory revealed in the first century, and reveals how much greater and more real that glory must be in the "behind-the-scenes" heavenly enactments of those events, both past, present and future. In this way, Revelation brings the promises even closer to us so we can keep it close in mind.
Revelation is a parallel, in vision form, to the same admonition to endure to the end that we get in many other passages of scripture which are not in vision form. For example:
(1 Timothy 6:11-16) 11 However, you, O man of God, flee from these things. But pursue righteousness, godly devotion, faith, love, endurance, and mildness. 12 Fight the fine fight of the faith; get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called and you offered the fine public declaration in front of many witnesses. 13 Before God, who preserves all things alive, and Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen. Note that the foundation here is that Jesus is already King of Kings [same point made in Revelation 1:5; 17:12], yet we continue to endure faithfully until a future manifestion or revelation of that same Kingship, when it can again be said that "Jehovah has become King!" based on the fulfilled promise of the Kingdom through Christ when he battles the nations, brings them to ruin [true End of Gentile Times], judging and rewarding the resurrected dead.
(Revelation 11:17, 18) . . .“We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” Revelation 12 is this same history of Jesus' appointment and divine protection in vision form, using Biblical imagery from the past. It provides assurance that the promises will come no matter what obstacles arise, even death. Here is the same promise in non-vision form:
(Romans 8:31-39) 31 What, then, are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who will be against us? 32 Since he did not even spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, will he not also, along with him, kindly give us all other things? 33 Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones? God is the One who declares them righteous. 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 Just as it is written: “For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we have been accounted as sheep for slaughtering.” 37 On the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious through the one who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers 39 nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. That "short period of time" might make sense to you as a period of 100 or 200 years, depending on how long the overlapping generation is defined. But there is nothing in scripture that says it is one "generation," or that it is less than 2,000 years or even less than 1 year. Perhaps it is the same time period that is also called "one hour" as the kingdoms being brought to ruin think that they must cooperate against the Lamb if they are to have any chance of survival:
(Revelation 17:12-14) 12 “The ten horns that you saw mean ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings for one hour with the wild beast. 13 These have one thought, so they give their power and authority to the wild beast. 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.”
I do not claim that this way of reading Revelation is the right way or true way, but it brings me comfort and encouragement, probably in a similar way to the way in which it brought comfort and encouragement to the first readers of Revelation in Ephesus, Pergamum, etc. I don't claim to know any more about the signs or the times and seasons than they did. If you find comfort in believing that Jesus took his full power and kingship in 1914, that's fine, too. Although I'm sure that, by comparison, you will be in even more awe of the power of that kingdom over the times of the gentile nations when that power is more fully manifested. And I'm sure you appreciate the glimpses of that power and glory that Jesus revealed in the past as recorded in scripture. So in this we are not so different, and I do not think there is any value in demeaning whatever meaning you currently give to this intermediate manifestation of that kingdom in 1914.
But with respect to honesty about the past, we do know that there is no evidence for the date 607. But, if one wishes, they can still find other reasons to look back at 1914. For many of us, I can tell it gives us a sense of superiority and self-righteousness that we, of all peoples, were able to predict 1914, decades in advance. But exactly what were we able to predict?
We were able to predict that it meant Armageddon would be completed in the surrounding months, that the great tribulation would be completed, and that it would usher in a time of peace before 1915. And, as the end of the times of power given to the nations (Gentile Times) it would also see the collapse into chaos of all nations and political institutions of all kinds except for the nation of Israel -- the Gentiles had had truly their day. It was "the end of the World" in that sense. So, in order to continue to be right and not admit a failure, we (WTS) loudly proclaimed that the "World had ended in 1914." That worked well through the war, but soon lost its value as 100% of the predictions for 1918 failed, too. We continued to say that Armageddon had actually started in 1914, because all we had to do was keep extending the meaning of Armageddon and weakening its Biblical meaning so that it was more related to the fight between "Labor and Capital." We also had a clever reason for continuing to say that the "great tribulation" had started in 1914, but that the break in the tribulation was the same one Jesus predicted saying that the days were cut short "on account of the chosen ones." This explanation was in effect when I was baptized, and didn't change until a few years later:
*** w99 5/1 p. 16 par. 11 “Let the Reader Use Discernment” ***
However, in later years we have come to see things differently. On Thursday, July 10, 1969, at the “Peace on Earth” International Assembly in New York City, F. W. Franz, then vice president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, gave an electrifying talk. In reviewing the previous understanding of Jesus’ prophecy, Brother Franz said: “The explanation was given that the ‘great tribulation’ had begun in 1914 C.E. and that it was not allowed to run its full course then but God stopped World War I in November of 1918. From then on God was allowing an interval for the activity of his anointed remnant of elect Christians before he let the final part of the ‘great tribulation’ resume at the battle of Armageddon.” Now, the only remaining portion of the prediction that we claim we got right was the prediction that the Gentile Times would end in 1914. We still claim that we were right about that, but had to change the definition of the term "Gentile Times" in order to keep claiming that we at least got that part right.
So, hopefully, you can see that I am only interested in the  repeated misuse of the doctrine by which we like to claim superiority because we wish to be "right at all costs." If it's at the cost of honesty and integrity, we should clean it up. I wonder how many people that we talk to in our ministry have been able to see through the false claims and hubris and this becomes the reason they give no further respect for the wonderful truths that we also could share with them.

Short answer .....
 

It's fine to believe this, but it's false to claim that the evidence supports it. We have already gone through dozens of examples showing that the Watchtower's chronology is inconsistent. Of course, even more inconsistency is introduced through mixing up the Gentile Times into this. You may have missed previous discussions on that particular topic.
The Bible chronology fits the archaeological evidence from NB chronology. There is no evidence for 607. To get anywhere near 607 you have to accept 539, which you have no right to do if you are going to reject 539 by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 607. If you are honest, you are forced to reject 539 if you accept 607. You can't cherry pick a range of dates that are interwoven and interlocked through tens of thousands of tablets and at least 10 other completely independent lines of evidence. You can claim whatever you want, but you'd have to show evidence if you are honest.
Your chronology is not at all anchored to 539. By choosing 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year you have rejected 539. Claiming you still want it after you reject it is dishonest. This is probably a difficult concept for anyone who has not really studied the data, and I suspect now, for many reasons, that you have never studied the data. This would explain why you have failed to present or counter any evidence and have merely repeated the mistaken logic and declared it "wondrous."
Your repetition of this particular point tells me again that you have not paid attention even to the Watchtower's explanation or have decided to use the fact that the Bible gives two different counting methods as an opportunity to try to bluster those who will not look into it for themselves. Bluster in this case would be dishonest, but you have failed to give any evidence that you mean to do anything else.
That's fine. But it's meaningless with respect to the Watchtower's misuse of the NB period which is unintelligible and unworkable.
The date 607 is not well-established until at least a tiny piece of evidence can be shown. You have failed to show evidence, but you apparently wish to continue blustering that it is "wondrous" and "well-established." Although you might have a doctrine that makes the same mistakes of prominent German theologians, it is still out of harmony with the words of Jesus. Jesus said that the parousia would come as a surprise and that the times and seasons were only in the Father's jurisdiction. Besides it is even out of harmony with the German theologians in that the Watchtower tied the predictions for 1914 with the reinstatement of the Israelite nation and the demise of all other nations and institutions in 1914. The failure of Israel to dominate in 1914 showed that the Gentile Times prediction failed. John Aquila Brown did not tie the Gentile Times to the 2,520 years having noticed that Revelation only ties the number 1,260 to Jesus words about the Gentile Times. The Bible never mentions "SEVEN Gentile Times." (The closest is Revelation's mention of THREE AND ONE-HALF Gentile Times.)
The capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 is a direct admission of the failure of the Gentile Times doctrine. If the Gentile Times had truly ended in 1914, there would be no Gentile forces to capture Jerusalem after 1914. Russell's fixation on the topic of the Jews repatriation to Palestine (Zionism) made him (in)famous, but all those predictions failed, and Rutherford finally dropped them all after 1926.
His study doesn't support our theory at all. Also, Jesus made it clear that the Gentile Times had not started before his own day which would be necessary for the Watchtower's theory to work. More importantly, the Bible undermines the Watchtower's theory. 607 is pseudo-archaeology, but it fails on every other point, too.
Jesus said that this kind of prophecy would be wrong, so I assume that if it builds faith, it must be the wrong kind of faith. Faith in a date, perhaps. Paul said we need nothing to be written to us about dates because the parousia comes as a surprise, like a thief in the night. And the worst part has been all the dead ends that have resulted from our chronological speculations over the years. So far, all the schemes have failed. It's surely better to listen to words of Jesus. He said that if someone claims to be able to show that the end is near, not to go after him. He said that no one would know the day or the hour. He said the parousia will be as sudden as visible as lightning. Surely, we have so many more valuable doctrines to focus on rather than disrespectfully toying with these words of Jesus.
(2 Peter 3:8-15) 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 Yet Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, . . . 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence [PAROUSIA] of the day of Jehovah, t. . . .14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU,

Yes, a lot of Witnesses are quick to deny this because they don't realize that the Watchtower has promoted two different regnal periods for Nebuchadnezzar. And it's completely unnecessary if you are willing to accept the Bible's timeline. The Bible's timeline is corroborated by archaeological evidence, too. But the Bible's timeline is not that helpful for pushing 1914, so it's adjusted here to put more emphasis on 607.
And it wasn't just done for Nebuchadnezzar. A lot of Witnesses are probably not aware that the timeline has been tampered with so that Jehoiakim has "yet another different regnal period" too.
Your quote from page 463 is actually one I was about to include because it very clearly shows some of the points I was making. Thanks. If the 11th year of Zedekiah marked a regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar that started in 607, then this really is "yet another different regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar" that started in 625. Don't you agree? The Insight book is numbering Nebuchadnezzar's reign from two different accession years: 625 and 607. Neither is correct, of course, from the perspective of the Biblical and historical evidence. The point is clearly to avoid the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was taking exiles from this early in his reign, which would lend support to the idea in Jeremiah (and Daniel) that the 70 years for Babylon in Jeremiah referred to the period of Babylon's greatest domination. Of course, Daniel also agrees with the Babylonian archaeological records here, too, which state that Babylon was taking things from Judea from the very earliest years of his reign, or even before, during his father's reign.
And, as I said, the Watchtower chronology also prefers to give Jehoiakim "yet another different regnal period" because this one also fits the Biblical and secular chronology, but does not fit the Watchtower "chronology" as well. (Here again, the Bible also fits the archaeological evidence in both cases, but this is not as important, evidently, as force-fitting 1914.) Compare these two references from "Insight."
*** it-1 p. 576 Daniel ***
This was in Jehoiakim’s third year (as tributary king to Babylon), which third year started in the spring of 618 B.C.E. (Da 1:1) *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) Counting from his first year as his accession year, Jehoiakim's third year would have been about 625 B.C.E, not 618 (both Watchtower dates) based on the date range below, where his accession year would be 628, first year 627, second year 626 and third year 625. 625 is of course Watchtower-speak for 605 the same year that Babylon beat both Assyria and Egypt making a last stand together at the battle of Carchemish.
** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Jehoiakim’s bad rule of about 11 years (628-618 B.C.E.) The reason the Watchtower doesn't like the Bible's account here is because it would have Nebuchadnezzar beginning his devastations and depredations in Judea even earlier than 625, which would mean that the 70 years that Jeremiah speaks of for Babylon's domination would clearly be closer to 90 instead of 70 years.
But both Babylonian records and the Bible shows that the devastation began even earlier, from very near the very beginning of the 70 years that the nations would begin serving Babylon. Note:
(2 Kings 23:36-24:1) 36 Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. . . . 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.. . . Biblical and secular chronology would put the start of Jehoiakim's reign in about 608 B.C.E, which would be the earliest that Judea under Jehoiakim could have suffered depredations under Nebuchadnezzar. [And no later than 600 to account for 3 years of servitude.] (That's 608+20=628 in Watchtower chronology.)
In fact it was "early in Jehoiakim's reign" that Jeremiah already had an eye on Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem:
*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Early in Jehoiakim’s reign Jeremiah warned that unless the people repented, Jerusalem and her temple would be destroyed. In fact the incursions by Egypt, Assyria and Babylon could have been nearly simultaneous for a time around 609 up through about 605 as the third year of Jehoiakim would have included the battle of Carchemish, won by Babylon, after a few years of battles in 609 when Egypt's Necho killed Judah's King Josiah, and Babylon overtook Assyria's Harran. Carchemish would would have then been in the third official year of Jehoiakim's reign. The situation fits 2 Kings 24:1-7:
(2 Kings 24:1, 2, 7) . . .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.. . . Never again did the king of Egypt venture out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt, from the Wadi of Egypt up to the Eu·phraʹtes River. In those years from 609 through 605, Egypt and Assyria are finally boxed in and Babylon is the primary, ascendant power, having toppled Assyria as the power to fear back in 609, and having been the strongest power for Judea to fear since that date.
And, as mentioned, even though the Watchtower publications cannot accept it, we have the Biblical statement in Daniel which is corroborated in the Babylonian Chronicles:
(Daniel 1:1-4) 1 In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, along with some of the utensils of the house of the true God, and he brought them to the land of Shiʹnar to the house of his god. He placed the utensils in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. 4 They were to be youths without any defect, of good appearance, endowed with wisdom, knowledge, and discernment, and capable of serving in the king’s palace.. . Notice that this is a perfect fit for 605 B.C.E. (625 Watchtower date), even though the Watchtower dating scheme does not like the term "third year of Jehoiakim" here. So it has to be reinterpreted in the Watchtower as closer to the end, not the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign.
A portion of the archaeological evidence is mentioned in Insight, where Hattu clearly includes Judea, and 625 is "Watchtower-speak" for 605, and 624 is 604:
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1)  
 

I am still of the opinion that this secular date of 607 doesn't matter that much. Millions of JWs believe it was when the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judea was desolated, and the year the last Davidic king was deposed. For many years now, I've known that there is overwhelming evidence against this date, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened 20 years after the date that our publications promote. Again, I don't think anyone should make a big deal about a date, and the date is "in the same ball-park," only a couple of decades off. That's less than 1% error for an event that happened about 2,624 years ago.
Millions of Witnesses who accept it do not have any reason to look into it to make sure about it. Why should they? Witnesses should have no reason to be skeptical of the publications, and the publications state very clearly that 607 is the secular date for this Biblical event, without question. I think that it is to be expected, therefore, that most of us will merely defend the date 607 because of the way it is presented in the publications. It appears to be what we should do. It is transparent on this forum that defending 607 has become another way of defending "slave" itself, which has become part of the belief and faith that we naturally defend from a scriptural point of view:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . . So all of us have that scriptural desire and reason to defend our beliefs, which is why I am sure that you and Arauna and others are presenting your views honestly, and with the right motive. My own reason for concern is not so much about the date itself, as explained above, but just an explanation of why I myself cannot honestly promote it. For me it's much more about honesty than the date itself. Looking very carefully and prayerfully at our own explanations in our publications I can see no Biblical reason to concern ourselves with either 607 or 587 or 539 or 537, whether the dates are correct or not. These dates are only as valuable to us as say 1513 B.C.E. or 740 B.C.E.
But I also believe I see evidence that the "slave" does not believe in 607, either. I believe the "slave" must feel trapped into this belief and have not yet found a clear way out. I base this opinion on the way in which the writers deal with evidence that reveals that the writers don't want the evidence questioned because they know what will be found. This shows a fear of the evidence. The very careful way in which they dealt with Furuli's evidence in October and November 2011 was very revealing. Even Insight shows that the writers knew more than they could say.
In fact, it is made to appear that this secular date has scholarly support. In many scholarly publications you will see a "c." for "circa" or "about" in front of a date, or else a range of dates is mentioned so that you can know that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Insight book does this too, in places -- but NEVER for 607. Here's an example:
*** it-1 p. 192 Ashkelon ***
In the prophecy of Amos (c. 804 B.C.E.) prediction was made of defeat for the ruler of Ashkelon. (Am 1:8) Secular history shows that in the succeeding century Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria made Asqaluna (Ashkelon) a vassal city. Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) uttered two prophecies involving Ashkelon. While Jeremiah 47:2-7 could have seen some fulfillment when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city early in his reign (c. 624 B.C.E.), the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:17-20, 28, 29 clearly indicates a fulfillment subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Zephaniah’s prophecy (written before 648 B.C.E.) also foretold a coming desolation for Ashkelon, along with other Philistine cities, after which the remnant of Judah would eventually occupy “the houses of Ashkelon.” (Zep 2:4-7) Finally, about 518 B.C.E., Zechariah proclaimed doom for Ashkelon . . .
In fact, the 607-date chronology is inserted into quotes and references from authorities as if it were referenced from there when it was not.
*** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***
According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, . . . *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102) *** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power. . . . One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.). Grayson and Pritchard, although referenced as authorities, actually offer contrary evidence, showing that the event marked here for 624 was actually 604, 625 was actually 605, 617 was 597, and the event marked here for 588 is actually 568 -- therefore the date marked 607 would actually be 587.
So although the Jerusalem event marked 607 was actually 587/6, according to all the referenced authorities found in Insight (these and dozens of others, including those not referenced), the Insight book chooses to refer to 607 as if it has never been questioned. Insight mentions the date 607 authoritatively, about 150 times.
To keep 607 in the limelight and evidently to avoid questions about thinking about the Biblical definition of the 70 years, the Insight book not only says 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, but also claims it was his "1st year" by another reckoning. Compare these two claims from Insight:
*** it-1 pp. 1185-1186 Image ***
Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream . . . *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was both 625 and 607 according to the Insight book. Yet Grayson, Pritchard and a thousand other sources would agree that it was 605.
Also, to keep 607 in the limelight the events of 598 and 589 through 587 are sometimes tied to just 607 as the "pivotal" year. For example, note that this last siege lasted for a year and a half, and a siege prior to this was about 10 years earlier. 
*** it-2 p. 1065 Tammuz, II ***
It was on the ninth day of this fourth month (Tammuz) that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. after an 18-month siege. Insight often admits that the siege was dated 2 years earlier and 10/11 years earlier, but notice the shorthand sometimes preferred for referencing Jerusalem's siege:
*** it-1 p. 1242 Jackal ***
Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. brought the stress of famine, with the result that mothers treated their own offspring cruelly. Thus Jeremiah appropriately contrasted the cruelty “of my people” with the jackals’ maternal care.—La 4:3, 10. The point, of course, is that the one date most in question of all dates that the Society uses, is always presented as if it is the one date least in question. It is repeated 150 times in the Insight book alone. And dates that fall within the period, including 625, 624, 617, 609, 607, 539 and 537 (more likely, the actual dates 605, 604, 598, 589, 587, 539 and 538) -- these dates make up the majority, by far, of all the dates ever mentioned in the entire Insight book, including all mentions of 29 C.E. and 33 C.E. put together.
Compare the case of 607 carefully with how we deal with evidence or "no evidence" in other doctrinal matters. I thought it was very revealing. In matters like "stauros" and several others, for example, the publications don't show the same fear and avoidance of the evidence.

We are talking about lack of scientific evidence for these dates  and how most of the humanities sciences are not worth much any more. Here is another example: 
Sciences for Middle Eastern studies and those sitting on the UNESCOs UN committee have already issued a ruling which stipulates that Israel has NO history in Jerusalem.!  How historically correct is that? Can one call this science? ..... When there is ample proof that Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE ?
So I would say it is relevant to the topic..... unless you have tunnel vision and cannot relate to anything else which puts more light on the subject by widening it out.  If you put your trust in these departments and their professors - you are going to be misled!  
 
 

Many true words spoken about science.  This is why the so-called evidence for evolution is such a joke.... and they call it a 'science'.   Many of the assumptions have not been thought through properly.
The universities are in BIG trouble at present.  Many scholars worth their salt are saying so.   Young people are paying mega bucks for generic degrees and have insurmountable debt (that is never forgiven) and they sit with humanities degrees that is not even worth the paper they are written on. 
The Humanities usually carry universities but gender politics and social warriors for women studies and gender (which are not sciences) have taken over all the departments at great institutions.  Most of the middle east departments have been taken over by Islam apologists (most of whom I think have not even read the Quran because their commentaries are sooo silly... and based on unrealistic assumptions (a better word for politically correct lies).  
The world is in trouble because the freedom of speech is oppressed at most schools of higher education at present and many of the humanities students get "triggered"  by anything that is controversial.  By the way, these philosophies are also taught in schools....
Universities have special rooms where 'gender raped' students can receive support for anything said (not done) which may emotionally trigger them to go crazy... and lecturers are losing their jobs for the simplest things.  These departments are run by transgender professors who are now running the show and most of them are  non-binary "gender-fluid".  They do look very gender fluid to me - caricatures! .... and they have NO morals. They are teaching the youth that there is NO right and wrong; the Bible must be thrown in the garbage because patriarchal thinking is the cause of all the problems on earth.!
Canada now has a law which recognizes more than 2 genders and this includes the 57 different genders identified by state departments ......and they say that "biology" has nothing to do with gender.... lol - very scientific!!
People can lose their jobs if they do not recognize the request of a fluid person to be called by one of these transgender pronouns. (doctors, nurses, legal people, teachers etc).  There is a legal battle on at the moment about this because the law organization wants to force every legal person and citizen to accept this.  It is in one state at present but is ready to be introduced everywhere!
These students will get out of university soon ( they are also part of ANTIFA and similar very  militant organizations which remind me of the bolsjeviks in Russia and Robespierre of the French revolution (very dangerous)  - they want all those in power to go - be eliminated - well this is how some of their leaders talk!  They want a revolution ... because anyone with power (mostly men) represent oppression!  If I recall how many people died in the French revolution and the Russian revolution (This was 40 million alone  when one includes the people killed by Stalin). I can see where this is heading if the authorities do not get a grip on it.
We are facing extreme times..... close to the end. Within a few years we can really be facing the  biggest crisis the earth has ever seen because this time round the technology for killing is bigger than ever before and the different revolutionaries are sitting at the heart of almost every country and pulling strings.
Wicked organizations and bad people (with billions) who benefit by chaos are also putting large amounts of money into these revolutionary organizations.  It is  crazy what is going on and the governments cannot contain this wild thinking and actions.
 
 

I would also guess that 1914 is here to stay because 
1. WW1, which is "on the ground" evidence as Arauna calls it, (even though originally it was supposed to be Armageddon).
2. Jesu's enthronement was invisible, so can't be disproved.
3. Most Witnesses don't have a clue about how we arrived at 1914 and of those who do, have no clue how we arrive at 607, and the few of those who do, have no clue as to why historians arrive at 587....and those even fewer who do, well...they are too few to make a difference...