Pudgy

I just looked at "my library," too, and it has exactly the same book with the exact same bar code number from "School of Theology at Claremont"
And in fact, this book, and this book, and this book . . . maybe 1,000 books all have a very similar "School of Theology at Claremont" sticker on them:
 


It is quite a good library. And I point this out again even though I have already provided links to this library at archive.org a couple of times in this very thread. Many books are available for free to read, or at least free to check out for an hour at a time. But more and more in the last two years, especially, there has been a copyright crackdown and some books can only be read online if you have "print disabilities." I don't know exactly what that means. I guess it's for people allergic to paper or who get some kind of headaches or dizziness or epileptic seizures reading books. I had never heard of it before. 

After reading through this thread, I thought for sure that AI and MISINFORMATION would be neck and neck.

When you see giant golden arrows embedded in burning military equipment globally ….
text me.
 

…

There is no biblical statement that anything happened in 607 BCE or 1914 CE. Go to search tool and you will not find any of this dates (numbers) in the Bible. That is my evidence.
Your evidence comes from the calculation of the biblical text. So you have no proof, just an interpretation.
lol

When you see giant golden arrows embedded in burning military equipment globally ….
text me.
 

When you see giant golden arrows embedded in burning military equipment globally ….
text me.
 

To me, this is not a math problem, this is a perception problem.
I made my living doing calculations for 40 years, but it was always an adjunct to proving something that existed or would exist in the real world. Train tracks that lined up, bridges that didn’t collapse, sewers that would not overflow, refineries that worked efficiently, and sites that drained properly etc. etc.
I have argued with other engineers about how much precision was necessary in calculations, as I always used six decimal places, to avoid creeping truncation errors, but the calculation was NOT THE END PRODUCT.  The End Product was something important in the REAL world.
So …. what’s important about one or two or 20 or 70 years …2600 or so years ago, on the other side of the planet, by peoples and nations … whole civilizations that don’t exist anymore?
It is perceived that this is important because when you add up a whole bunch of numbers it either succeeds or fails in getting you to 1914, which without the slightest infinitesimal shred of REAL evidence is when Christ established his Kingdom … or something along those lines. It’s hard to keep up ‘cause the goalposts are constantly being moved.
100.000000% of hard facts say WWI, the “Great War” was a 1914 coincidence.
Looking at real evidence, NOTHING supports the idea that Armageddon occurred, and Christ established ANYTHING in 1914.
if the elements being intensely hot had melted, etc., SOMEONE would have noticed.
The Bible actually describes EXACTLY what humans would see when Christ returns in Kingdom Power.
The destruction of all competing governments!
                     Armageddon.
Please correct me if you have any evidence Armageddon has already occurred.
Remember evidence?
If your extensive calculations, checked and double checked, PROVE a chicken is spherical …. LOOK AT THE CHICKEN!

The point of the thread is the self-imposed 20-year gap in the Watchtower's chronology schema. This discussion about 1914 is definitely related even if it looks out of place. I think it's good to see just how far one needs to stretch things to make it look like SOMETHING happened in 1914 that might be visible to the world AND that supposedly gives the WTS bragging rights for having predicted it in advance. 
The only thing we have left of all the predictions that Russell made is not about the War, but simply the expression he used: that it would be "The End of the Gentile Times." To Russell that meant what it said: the complete and final end of the national (gentile) governments. Originally that they would be brought to nothing, and no nations or governments would exist after October 1914 because the ONLY legitimate government on earth after 1914 would be a Jewish government out of Palestine. The timeframe kept slipping and the WTS gave up on that idea completely around 1929/30. 
Now the entire expression "End of the Gentile Times" has drifted so far away from its original meaning that it has nothing to do with Gentiles vs Jews at all. And the Gentiles don't stop ruling after all. There are more Gentile nations now than ever! And they are more powerful now than ever! And the "Jews" are now identified spiritually as the remnant of spiritual Israel, and yet they somehow get trampled and made captives after 1914 (especially 1918-1919). Some are even killed and put in prison, especially in the 1940's.
So all that's left of that expression now is empty: the nations still rule even though their "time" has ended, but they have lost their "lease" to rule, but they aren't even aware of that. 

I don't know what you mean. Dr. Wiseman didn't say he was confused did he?
Yes. Of course it's true that mistakes pointed out in "past claims by scholars" should discredit the credibility of those scholars who made those past claims. That's always true that mistakes can discredit credibility, but not always.
Your question is more likely asking about when current scholars point out mistakes from the past. In that case, does it discredit the credibility of those current scholars when pointing out those past mistakes by others (such as scribes from 2,500 years ago, or even other scholars from 10 to 1,000 years ago). And if that's the question then it does not necessarily discredit their own credibility, unless of course, they are pointing out irrelevant mistakes needlessly, or especially if they are merely replacing those past mistakes with their own current mistakes.
But I don't see Dr Wiseman doing anything wrong here, and he does not claim there were any scribal mistakes in this context. He does mention some mistakes made by some past scholars but nothing substantial to this discussion. 
So my take on this is: Always question, always be skeptical and verify as best we can. Never trust our own understanding either. All of us can be wrong. All of us fall short. The purpose of discussion is to look for ways in which I might be wrong so that I can correct my wrong opinions.
Yes. Of course, see how that works out for you!! LOL. Only trust illogical unstrustworthy non-scholars, if you wish. LOL. 
In reality, you should not put TOO much trust in either non-scholars or scholars either. Evidence that you can see for yourself should be looked at and validated yourself as much as possible. A lot of evidence that people think is too difficult to check out for themselves is extremely simple and we have nothing to be afraid of. As Watchtower publications have long suggested for other contexts:
*** tr chap. 2 p. 13 par. 5 ***
We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any . . .  are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. 
 

Thanks again for the soapbox setup regarding 1914. LOL.
Scripture says no one knows the day and the hour or the times and the seasons of Jesus' return. "For you do not know when the time will come." Also, scripture says that it wasn't for us to know and that we would need to stay on the watch for his return, by being always ready even for a completely unexpected visitation, like a thief in the night, not waiting for signs. Thieves in the night do not put up signs announcing their visit.
So the only proper way to keep on the watch is to always be prepared, watch our conduct, have faith. Thinking there might be an advance sign keeps people from being fully prepared until they see the sign. Christians need to be prepared BEFORE the sign appear. As Jesus said, when it is too late to even go back into your house to grab something, "THEN the sign will appear --IN HEAVEN!!"
But first a defense for anyone who might be interested in the topic just for the sake of knowledge.
Some people like puzzles. Some people like history. Most of the heavy lifting and most of the very detailed and tedious work has been done by hundreds, even thousands of people who had never heard of 1914. Many of the Greek historians who wanted to make a history of say, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Troy, Peloponnesia, or Alexander the Great also wanted to see just how exactly they could puzzle together the number of years between certain events, exactly how long ago something happened.
Just saying "Year 10 of King so-and-so" wasn't good enough if that king was so far back in time that you weren't sure if your "Kings List" or "archon list" was complete or accurate enough. If there was even one inaccurate listing or missing king from the list then the chain of accuracy was broken. Longer eras were tried. Attaching events to a certain numbered 4-year Olympiad was tried. Ptolemy and others realized that you could go back into Babylonian and Assyrian times and double-check their Kings Lists against actual astronomical readings that he could double-check against repeating cycles of eclipses and even repeated planetary motion against certain constellations. It was fortunate that the Babylonians had astrologers who took such meticulous note of such things. After double-checking, it turned out he could trust the Babylonian Kings Lists, just like today where the Watchtower trusts the same Kings List that Ptolemy quoted, in order to say that Cyrus in 539 is a trusted, anchored, pivotal date.
Full disclosure, the WTS only trusts the list from Cyrus on, NOT BEFORE. And there's also one place where the WTs doesn't like it again AFTER Cyrus, during the reign of Artaxerxes:
*** it-1 p. 182 Artaxerxes ***
Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son of Xerxes I, is the king referred to at Ezra 7:1-28 and Nehemiah 2:1-18; 13:6. Whereas most reference works give his accession year as 465 B.C.E., there is sound reason for placing it in 475 B.C.E.
The "sound reason" is again (just like for 607 from 587 BCE) a prophetic interpretation that we would like to have work a certain way, and the Watchtower interpretation doesn't work with the evidenced chronology.
 
But even today, many people will get angry if you say that the Civil War started in 1841 or that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1756, or that, nearly half-way around the world, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand happened in 1894 or that Lenin's Revolution in Russia was in 1897. Or that Jesus was born around 22 BC. Some people are sticklers for accuracy and don't like false claims even when it really doesn't matter all that much to our own family and pets. 
And for that matter, saying that something happened in 1914 when no one at the time actually noticed whatever it was that happened at the time, also has no real effect on us today. If the Watchtower had claimed that whatever happened invisibly then, had actually happened in 1934, or if we still claimed that it had happened in 1874, there would be no material difference to anything else we believe in. Changing the starting dates, and then adding an undefinable and fairly flexible "overlapping generation" to it, means we don't really even have an expectation that is specifically tied to that year any more.
So the only real point for most Witnesses then, is to be able to brag that the WTS was able to predict that SOMETHING big would happen in 1914. And even though it wasn't anything like what the WTS predicted, no one can deny that SOMETHING big did happen that year. 
So the real point, pretty much the only remaining point, must be for some kind of gnostic bragging rights. Boasting about how our own esoteric and convoluted method of interpreting "hidden knowledge" proves we are about the closest thing to "prophets" that one might expect these days.
This is what Russell apparently had in mind in the first thing he ever published back before he started the Watchtower magazine. In 1876 he said regarding 1914:
We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. . . . But, some one will say, “If the Lord intended that we should know, He would have told us plainly and distinctly how long.” But, no, brethren, He never does so. The Bible is to be a light to God’s children;–to the world, foolishness. Many of its writings are solely for our edification upon whom the ends of the world are come. As well say that God should have put the gold on top instead of in the bowels of the earth it would be too common; it would lose much of its value. So with truth; but, “to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom."
In fact, look what was added to the Aid book and Insight book which were supposed to be all-purpose, general-use Bible Dictionaries. Even though the predictions about 1914 turned out not to be true, and even though a sensationalist newspaper at the time made a story that falsely misrepresented those predictions, the Insight book provides the following bit of boasting:
*** it-1 p. 135 Appointed Times of the Nations ***
“Seven times,” according to this count, would equal 2,520 days. That a specific number of days may be used in the Bible record to represent prophetically an equivalent number of years can be seen by reading the accounts at Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. Only by applying the formula there expressed of “a day for a year” to the “seven times” of this prophecy can the vision of Daniel chapter 4 have significant fulfillment beyond the day of now extinct Nebuchadnezzar, as the evidence thus far presented gives reason to expect. They therefore represent 2,520 years.
It is a historical fact worth noting that, on the basis of the points and evidence above presented, the March 1880 edition of the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations” (and the end of the lease of power granted the Gentile rulers). This was some 34 years before the arrival of that year and the momentous events it initiated. In the August 30, 1914, edition of The World, a leading New York newspaper at that time, a feature article in the paper’s Sunday magazine section commented on this as follows: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”
 
So it has really just become a roundabout way of bragging and hinting at least subliminally that the WTS is a kind of "prophet:"
(Amos 3:7) . . .For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing Unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.

It becomes recognizable to me as follows. There are scholars, archaeologists, historians and others involved in looking at historical events and dating them. These are people who independently or within the framework of recognized institutions research the matter and draw conclusions. All such individuals should have, and probably have, diplomas from higher educational institutions, so you can have confidence in their work and expertise.
 
On the other hand, we have "esteemed" researchers whose names we do not know, nor their diplomas, because they work in anonymity as individuals or as unitary teams of a religious community. It is necessary to strongly emphasize the fact that this same religious community, as a non-profit body, strongly appeals before various other "secular bodies", such as courts and other institutions dealing with religious and human freedoms (and the like), appeals for its complete independence when it comes to religious doctrines and interpretations. They refer to their constitutionally guaranteed right that no one, not even the courts, have the right to engage in assessments or judgments as to whether certain theological interpretations are legal or not, right or wrong.
In light of such a context and the claim of "independence in interpreting the biblical text" JWs (read, religious leaders) can, if they want to, say and teach what they like and see fit for their own theological consistency and doctrinal purpose while leading their believers with specifically chosen direction of one's own religious thought.
In other words, this means that any teaching of a religious community, even if it is contrary to official science and and as such recognized by the academic community, cannot be considered  as"wrong", because this right and freedom to "interpretation/s" is guaranteed by constitutional freedoms and charters.

…
 

What about all that fresh air and clean water you consume, resources that could be put to fine use?
Really, Srecko, you don’t think you’re grasping at straws here?
If she wants to saw off the branch she has been sitting on and congratulate herself on her liberation from the tree, it is her choice. My bad for implying a deficit of sense.
As with your commentary on Amber, it would appear that your beef is with faith and religious community itself. That being the case, one wonders that you spend so much time on the one faith that has solved racism and will not pick up arms on any account.
Probably another ‘eye of the beholder’ scenario. Just like how the one who doesn’t agree with how an opponent frames matters is always ‘arrogant’ on that account. I admit, I do not follow trial testimony closely or at all, but I have suggested in the past that since everybody hates jury duty and nobody believes a court outcome anyway, that the answer is to try all cases on Facebook and settle guilt or innocence by likes. It’s not like I’m trying not to do my bit.
I do have one of those things. I have measured the Bethel brothers on it. They check out okay.

On the venues I have seen, a sense of optimism prevails among most, having ‘escaped’ from the ‘cult.’ Some of the younger one taunt GB brothers, reminiscent of adolescents mocking out their teachers. Some of the older ones greet new ‘escapees’ with, ‘Welcome to your future!’ They all but sing the song, ‘The Future’s So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades.’
It is an optimism that prevails in few other places. Elsewhere, people are anything but optimistic about the future and a fair number are not even sure there will be one. Even the songwriter pointed out that the ‘job waiting’ after graduation is in the nuclear industry and the reason he’s ’gotta wear shades’ is the threat of conflagration.
Then there is an Amber Scorah who wrote a book upon going ‘apostate’ which was hailed by the media. The reviews lauded her ‘courage’ for facing the death of her newborn just following her ‘escape’ from a ‘high-control’ religion. ‘The dodo!’ I found myself thinking. Here she leaves a place where the death of a newborn would have unleashed scores of genuine comforters with a resurrection hope that never fails among Witnesses to soften the blow, to enter a community where there is no such comfort, but only the harsh loss itself, and she still counts it a victory! egged on by people who have donned the shades, know the meaning of the song, accept its possible outcome,  and still count it a victory for facing the future unafraid, without the ‘crutch’ of religion. It’s as though the closer the Atomic Scientist Doomsday Clock gets to midnight (now, 90 seconds to go) the more they cheer, so drunk are they that humans should rule the earth through their own self-determination, and not God.
I recall Amber’s name because I made a mental note to read her book someday, along with Rolf’s. I’ll probably never get around to either of them because everyone has a tale of responding to woe. Everyone has a tale of reacting to things that don’t entirely square (as though everything in the greater world does). Everyone has a tale of miscarriage  like Job and/or being undermined by characters like Eli, Bill, and Zop. Mine is as good as theirs—they should read my books, not I theirs!—which have the added advantage of showing how you can throw out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. Or, just read and meditate on the Book of Job. That will do the trick, too.
At our Kingdom Hall, the torch has been passed to a younger generation of elders. One of them handled the ‘Instruction’ talk last night, ‘Remain Loyal Despite the Actions of Others.’ Have you ever been hurt by another brother or sister? he asked. ‘It could have been accidental. It could have been deliberate; we’re imperfect,’ he said. He then related how he had had such an experience in another congregation at the hand of fellow elders. He gave no details, other than how it hurt him deeply and he wrestled for a proper reaction.
‘What about the sister in the picture?’ he returned to the text material, commented on the accompanying photo. Here she is being yelled at. Right outside the Kingdom Hall. That’s not pleasant, is it? It probably was traumatic. What will she do? Who will she tell? (the photo inset shows her in prayer) Will she tell everyone in the congregation? [laughter, because the friends are contrasting that with the inset] Will she go to another congregation? Will she leave the truth? He then returned to his own experience. ‘Do you want to leave the congregation?’ The CO had asked him, and pointed to one or two where they needed help. The CO presented it that neither option, stay or go, was wrong, but, ‘If you stay, you will grow.’ He did stay and did grow. He related how, by staying, he got to see how Jehovah handled the issue in time.
It is always a matter of stay or go in the face of adversity. Sometimes the go is to a different congregation. Sometimes it is to leave the faith entirely.
The Bethel brothers do push back against apostasy, but with such a non-applicable vagueness that you wonder if they are not keeping something under wraps. They give the solution without mentioning the sticky scenario that requires it.  ‘The unanswered argument always appears stronger for that reason,’ I read somewhere. It makes those who examine it overestimate its strength and those who don’t can become almost superstitious, fearing the power of ‘poisonous’ words.
It can happen. Every malcontent wants to control the narrative. He wants your agenda to be replaced by his. To indulge him in all his accusations is dumb. However, to pretend he doesn’t exist isn’t all that much better. 
Sure. It’s inconsistent to present investigation as bad when it was investigation that led us to become Witnesses in the first place. It’s enough to say, ‘Well, you wouldn’t want to hang out there, but if you go there at all, watch out for toxic people, hypercritical people, unforgiving people, and OCD people—all of whom present in great numbers.’
The brothers really do give excellent counsel on combatting apostasy, but it can come across as hamstrung by a determination to avoid specifics. In the latest monthly broadcast one of the helpers gives such a talk. It is overall pretty good. But it starts with something like, ‘have you ever heard negative reports on JWs? It might be about (he mentions a few things that no one cares about—maybe they did at one time, but not now) and then says, ‘or maybe it is about our view of disfellowshipping. Bingo. I’d love to see a talk specifically on this topic. Maybe this is not the occasion for it, but is there one somewhere? A talk explaining the need for such discipline, and backing it up with secular considerations, not just the biblical ones that resonate with fewer and fewer people today. Something along the lines of, https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/08/the-trump-card-of-christian-discipline.html, maybe.
No need to present a litany of court cases, which opposers want done. There’s hardly a point, anyway. The pattern today is that activists influence law to the point they sometimes replace it. Lower courts may be swayed, but higher courts, not yet so infiltrated, overturns negative rulings on the basis of higher principles. Will this trend continue? Who knows? As activist ‘wokeism’ advances, with it’s demand of ‘inclusion,’ sparks fly with any religion that wants ‘insulation,’ essentially, that wants to follow Jesus direction to be ‘no part of the world.’ In the secular world, we see that law is turned inside-out and upside-down in an attempt to advance political or social causes. Will such legal manipulation one day ensnare us at the highest court level? As it did in Russia, and then the ECHR overturned the Russian Supreme Count verdict against the JW organization and the next day Russia removed itself from it’s jurisdiction?
So far, the earthly organization has proved adept at tweaking and amending policies to stay a step ahead of ones who use law in order to shut them down, Russia notwithstanding.  Always, such tweaks and amendments are lambasted as hypocrisy by opponents. Sometimes the brothers are somewhat clunky in response, but they do respond with what generally makes things better, leading some to say, ‘Jehovah uses the world to discipline his people!’ something I don’t say, but if it results in better policies and better navigation amidst a sea of circling sharks, why quibble?  
If money is involved in any way, as it always will be with any large organization, then it is, ‘It’s all about money with them!’ Even if one takes this view, so what? ‘Is there any among you whose bull will fall into a pit who will not drop everything until it is pulled out?’ Jesus says. Preservation of money is an unremarkable concern in secular matters of life. Money has the power to do things, so you want to keep it if you can. It’s only the ‘love of money’ that messes you up, not money itself.
The reason kids do not walk up and down the street with a shovel in winter or a lawn mower in summer, the way they used to, is that nobody will hire them. The reason nobody will hire them is that lawyers have exploited the occasional accident to award multi-million dollar verdicts. That’s why I pulled into the street of my childhood home to see my 77-year old dad, raised on a farm, perched atop his 2-story suburban home doing a re-roof. ‘Hey, Pop, you don’t have anything to prove at your age,’ I told him. It is also why every town used to have a ‘Suicide Hill’ for winter sledding, but now none of them do. It is safety, to be sure, but safety mostly driven by money. That hill was mobbed when I was a boy; my dad would take us there, as did many dads. Every so often, someone would break his leg. He’d emerge from the hospital on crutches with a bill for $100. Today, that bill might be in the hundreds of thousands, and people on TV would tell how their lawyer ‘got them 10 times what the insurance company offered.’
The trouble with social media is that a comment from a principled and thoughtful person is immediately followed by one from a hedonistic moron who nonetheless carries equal weight. I am ecstatic about the internet. Something that would have taken me days to research I can now find out in seconds. But I haven’t lost sight of the fact that, by far, the greatest use of the internet is for porn. Closing in quickly is the spread of ‘misinformation,’ which is always in the eye of the beholder, lately countered with ‘fact-checking’ which is also in the eye of the beholder. AI Chat and, Lord help us, deep fakes, will presently make us all (except for some on this forum, of course) a flock of permanently-manipulated marks. AI tells us various things, but the Musk’s AI, fed differing algorithms, tell us another. And yet people are awed by artificial intelligence and count it as truly intelligent.
It’s not so much the thought that you may be ‘manipulated’ on the JW website that rankles; it is the ridiculous thought that you will not be manipulated elsewhere, only more subtly, with the always reassuring majority backing, and it accord with the modern spirit to let no one tell us what to do! Those who decry brainwashing the loudest are not so much concerned about brainwashing, but about brainwashing that is not theirs. Everything must be seen in the context of, ‘Government by God, or Government by Man,’ the universal issue that Watchtower publications put their finger on a century ago. 
Social media ‘exposes’ the faults of others, to be sure, but has it taken people anywhere other than it dawning on them they must rely upon themselves (not terrible in itself) because (the following is terrible) nobody is to be trusted. Twenty years into the widespread adoption of social media, has hatred been beaten back? Or has it increased ten-fold? These things are better seen in absence of any JW context, pro or con. Is there any figure anywhere, other than the occasional no-count entertainer or athlete, who garners overall public support. Or do we not just see the unseemly results when their respective enemies succeed in landing a punch or kicking them in the you-know-whats, revealing their shortcomings for all to see?
All the same, if social media exists and becomes all the rage, as it has, you’d better learn how to use it. You don’t want to be like the Amish man who says, ‘Forget these wicked cars from the Devil. It’s horse and buggy for us!’ You will overall lose, because Christians are destined to lose, as enemies are written to have their day in the sun, as they did with our Lord, before the tables are turned to make victory our of defeat. But, even as you do lose, you will likely succeed in keeping more of your own people and will draw in a certain number of high-information people who can recognize the big picture—the sort of people JWs drew in decades ago from the religious world before anyone ever heard of social media. A bit of training would help equip ones so inclined, just as we train in other aspects of communication. 
In Tom Irregardless and Me, I wrote about the JW website, then relatively new on the internet:
“Members of the Governing Body thus repeat the pattern they are known for with any new technology: They eye it with suspicion. They advise caution. They know that when the thief switches getaway cars, it is the thief you have to watch, not the dazzling features of the new car. They follow the thief for a time. Convinced at last that they still have a bead on him, they examine the car. They circle it warily, kicking the tires. At last satisfied, they jump in with both feet and put it to good uses its inventors could only have dreamed of.”
They have done that with the internet. They have not yet done that with social media. At present, the strategy still seems to be to hope it goes away.
 

I believe both of us are pretty much repeating ourselves at this point. Before this conversation winds down I will try to summarize the points I tried to make, without all the repetition. You might get a chance to do the same. If you don't wish to, I will probably try to do that for you.
But no rush. @George88 has made a few comments that I'd like to address and he has also asked about the actual tablet evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years. I'd don't have much time, so I'd like to shift attention over to the points he has made and asked about.

Don't mind me not participating in the discussion about dates and events. There is a lot of math, comparing and memorizing, and reading a lot of books. I don't have that capacity, and I don't have enough persistence.
Should we deal with the figure of "70 years" as an important factor? Not really, as far as I can see. Because there were several "exiles" for many nations and individuals, not just some. And they all started and ended at different times.
Another thing that is troubling in general when we want to rely on statements in the Bible is this. God himself declared that his covenant with the Jews and his Law and some other things will last forever (not 70 or 700,000 years, but forever).
What is visible today of that "eternity"? Something still persists/continues, but how and in what way? Some claim that "that eternity" no longer lasts.
I conclude that relying on the "70 years" benchmark is unreliable.

... continued...
Not according to the evidenced chronology, of course, but according to the WT chronology. 
(Jeremiah 52:27-30) . . .Thus Judah went into exile from its land. These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
If you say the 18th year refers to 607, then the 7th year would be 618 BCE when the greater number were taken into exile.  In fact, as mentioned before, this number was two-thirds of the entire number of exiles, and the number exiled in the 18th year ("607") was only about one-sixth of the total number of exiles. 
Daniel said he was among a group of Judean exiles in an earlier group than "607." Jeremiah spoke of the exiles 10 years before "607." And Ezekiel goes so far as to use a new era of dating where each year was one of the "YEARS of OUR EXILE."  
(Ezekiel 33:21) . . .At length in the 12th year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month of our exile, a man who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said: “The city has been struck down!”
So it really makes no sense to start claiming that something called "The Exile" (as if there were only one) MUST have started ONLY in the year of the smallest number of exiles, what you call 607. It also flies in the face of Ezekiel's use of the term "in the 12th year of our Exile" to refer to a time starting 10 years before "the Exile" that you are arguing for.
Why do you need to start "the Exile" a decade LATER than Ezekiel starts "the Exile"? 

As a residential and business internet installer/trouble-shooter for the past 16 years, I have heard the sentiments plenty of times that people are a bit paranoid about their cameras being on. Some even conspiratorial about the cameras on their computers.

…


 
A farmer, a physicist, and a mathematician are tasked with designing a fence to enclose a flock of spherical chickens. The farmer suggests a simple circular fence, but the physicist argues that a cylindrical fence would be more efficient. The mathematician ponders for a moment and then says, "I have a solution. First, assume a spherical chicken..."
 

I have tried to follow along with the discussions here, but it seems I am lost and not able to do so.
I suspect that it is somewhat similar to quantum physicists from Cornell University in New York arguing with quantum physicists at Stanford University in California.
Unless that is your intense area of interest, everyone else will just fade out.
So if you will take a moment and indulge me, a single paragraph?
To me the bottom line is “was God’s kingdom established, the return of Christ in any form whatsoever in 1914 or 1918, or 1915 or whatever the current flavor is.?”
I assume that’s why these discussions are apparently important?
It’s to prove or disprove some thing or another about THAT? 
Or what?

“  …. pay no attention to the man (men) behind the curtain …” (Wizard of Oz)
…. and anytime someone says “… no doubt …” it is a red rocket flare arcing high into the night sky!

So … um … what’s a “pivotal year”, and how many of them have there been in history?
I think of a “pivotal year” being something like 65,203,112 BCE when the dinosaurs were wiped out, with 95% of all other living things on Earth. ….. and with all the dates being bandied about, did anyone take into account “leap years” and other “adjustments”?
I seem to remember something about the Popes screwing around with calendars, cancelling 7 months (?) and people being infuriated because they thought seven (?) months of their lives had been lost.
If priests of Marduk in Babylon did similar things and didn’t leave records …. well ….. BLOOIE!
 

If I could I would put 2 emoticons. Laughter and sadness. I can see through your comments how much information you have and "expertise" in presenting it.
I could have guessed your answer. I knew the WTJWorg "researchers" wanted to remain anonymous for the reason stated. Maybe one is trying to be more modest than the reality is. Furthermore, such an explanation could have passed some 20 years ago. Today, to say such a thing is so ridiculous and unconvincing, when we see many JWs key figures providing "spiritual guidance" and "interpretations" with head and beard, with first and last name and without any shyness, on JWTV and other digital platforms.
As a class and as individuals, they proved that they are without "leadership from above". They are at the same time subordinated to the main condition that the "company/corporation" should not fail but survive at all costs. Entangled in a series of their own nonsensical interpretations and clarifications, they prove themselves constantly incapable of providing the "truth". Because they changed "the truth" countless times.
Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, I cannot "submit" myself to your "generated" (recognizable) answer, because it looks like the use of an AI platform, which has been repeatedly exposed here, which gives wrong and misleading information.
I appreciate the possibility that you deeply believe in it, but that will not make the premise real and proven.
I remain to enjoy this academic discussion.