George88

I completely agree, and I can't argue with that. It's disheartening to witness individuals attempting to impose their beliefs on readers as if they were unquestionably right. Regrettably, there has been a decade-long prevalence of dishonest individuals spreading false information here.
This one goes in the category of "was" Jesus crucified on a cross or a torture stake? Some individuals falsely claim the "T" cross and not the torture stake. 
It's frustrating when people criticize me for thinking I'm wrong while overlooking the faults of those they favor. It seems they only focus on pointing out the mistakes of those they don't like, disregarding those they do. This alone reveals the "dishonesty" of specific individuals, and that is unlikely to change.
Observing the illustration regarding finding common ground with specific words, only to have it dismissed by the same person you used to illustrate that very fallacy, and to be falsely contradicted by someone inconsequential, is another sign of deceitfulness.
Who truly becomes the "troll" when they emerge from the closed club to demonstrate the actual impact to the audience? LOL!

"Technically speaking", we can still use Satan as a fashion designer, because he is a "murderer from the beginning", so what would be a problem for him to kill an animal for its skin? 
Figuratively, wearing leather clothing would mean that it was a specific "sign of Satan" characteristic for all those who rebel against God. lol
....,  but "we don't know". lol 

It's a fascinating question, Tom. Although it may seem challenging at first, it is not impossible to answer. The prevailing speculation suggests that God provided Adam and Eve with skins while they were still inside the Garden, as Genesis 3:21 indicates. I'm not disputing scripture here but the interpretation of scripture by others. However, it is important to consider that this wording may not necessarily be meant to be taken literally. Other sources suggest that God clothed them when they were already outside the garden. So, the real question for all of you should be: Why did God feel the need to clothe them twice? Once inside the garden, where Adam and Eve were already covered, and a second time when they were already outside the garden.
If I was to say I'm wrong, I would first need to disregard the fact that scripture mentions Adam and Eve were already covered when God spoke to them. Meaning I would need to refute scripture just to satisfy the viewpoint. Then I would have to deny the fact skins of an animal don't come off by themselves. If we think otherwise, we would have to say, God "did" sacrifice animals inside the garden to clothe Adam and Eve. How would that act been seen from heaven given the "fact" God considered all of his creation precious. 
If we consider that God did not have to take the lives of animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve in the garden, we may still wonder about the origin of the "skins." Could they have been crafted artificially, resembling garments made of tunics or linen but with a texture like feel of an animal skin? This would still mean the garment was made of linen or artificial with an animal skin look.
Then I would have to deny other writings in order for me to say I'm wrong.
"Then came the Word of God and said to him, "O Adam, take Eve and come to the seashore where you fasted before. There you will find skins of sheep that were left after lions ate the carcasses. Take them and make garments for yourselves, and clothe yourselves with them."
I'm sure this hasn't been overlooked nor should it be. I'll leave you people to rationalize it.

As imperfect humans, the idea of 9 billion broiler chickens may seem plausible, but considering the perfection of the garden's inhabitants, it may not be appropriate to apply the same calculation.

I disagree with your understanding of the passage you cited. "Subduing" the creators of the land should not be seen as a justified course of action for exploitation. As you indicated, it is about having dominion over them as caretakers who have no intention of using them for consumption. As you can see, the passage you mentioned uses the same language of food for the animal kingdom.
Therefore, God's intention for the garden was to have humans and animals live a harmonious life. For that to occur, no evil intent would have been allowed to enter the garden and corrupt the desires of humans and animals, leading to wicked actions such as consuming flesh.
Does this passage discuss the inside or the outside of the garden? What is the reason for considering them as distinct subjects?

It's interesting to consider that if we follow that line of reasoning, God must have explicitly informed Adam and Eve about what was forbidden within the Garden, aside from the tree of knowledge. I guess, modern individuals could greatly benefit from having a comprehensive guide outlining the actions and behaviors that align with God's commands, or do they? It's quite amusing how God instructed the first couple to freely enjoy the edible fruits and vegetation. In my opinion, that instruction was actually quite explicit, as it made no mention of consuming meat, nor did God suggest it to them.
People often try to rationalize their irrational thoughts regarding the time of Noah and Moses. In Leviticus 17:14, it is stated that the life of the flesh resides in the blood, which would be considered precious to God. During those times, the Israelites had a specific ritual of purity that they had to follow for God's acceptance. The concept of defilement would have played a significant role in the minds of Noah, Moses, and Preist as emphasized in Deuteronomy 12:23.

All those facts were essential for a priest to comprehensively grasp their duties under God. True Christians should also embrace the same understanding, distinguishing themselves from those who forsake the true purpose and mistakenly consider themselves Christian. This principle is underscored in Ezekiel 3:18 and Hebrews 9:22.
What is the true significance of Matthew 5:21, regarding the act of causing bloodshed, whether by oneself or another?
True Christians do not want to defile the precious bloodshed made by Christ for us. Who among true Christians does not understand Deuteronomy 28? They should pay attention to it.

JWs insist, for a very long time, on being treated as "clergy" before the courts. Or in a some wider context known only to WTJWorg' "creators of future". Reference has already been made in previous CSA cases to the Catholic clergy, and their (JWs) status as a clergy inside JWs Congregations.
"Catholic type of confession" is in a form in which one priest and one person who "confesses his sin" have a special relationship.
Of course, this is nothing like the JWs elders who examine the "sinner" in a three-member commission ( Judicial Committee) and determine the "guilt or innocence" of the sinner.
As far as can be seen, the purpose of the "Catholic confession" is to forgive the sinner and to appease him and lead him on the right path without "sanction" of excommunication.
With "JWs confession" one tries to determine whether there is guilt on the part of the one who is "confessing".
Different forms of "confessions" are here in question and different methods and processes through which the "sinner" is guided.
Also, there is a huge difference between becoming a "priest" in the Catholic Church and becoming an "elder" in the JWs Church.
If JWs want to be like the "clergy" in the Catholic Church, judging by their demands to be treated in court the same as the Catholic clergy, then we wonder; do JWs elders want to go through the same requirements as candidates for the Catholic Priesthood? To finish college, not to get married and the like?
Controversial demands of JWs will mean controversial solutions in WTJWorg theology and practice. It remains to be seen how the courts will view and resolve this, and how the WTJWorg Administration (read, GB) will adapt to it.
Articles:
Pa. courts weigh whether Jehovah's Witnesses elders must report confessed child abuse
- https://pennrecord.com/stories/654791353-pa-courts-weigh-whether-jehovah-s-witnesses-elders-must-report-confessed-child-abuse
PROCEDURE-COORDINATE JURISDICTION RULE-JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
- https://www.riederstravis.com/procedure-coordinate-jurisdiction-rule-jehovahs-witnesses/
7 Steps to Become a Catholic Priest
- https://catholicworldmission.org/how-to-become-a-priest/
 
 
 

Man, you are petty and self-blind, aren’t you?
The above is an excellent example of ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime.’ Who can’t see the superiority in that?
Why on earth can’t you emulate the Jehovah’s Witness’ relief effort among whoever you associate with? Then, you would be so occupied, you would have neither time nor cause to be envious of the deeds of others.
People without Bible principles tend to be slow to roll up their sleeves. They also not to get along, so cooperation is amongst them is difficult. All they have to do is adopt the Bible principles that Witnesses have, and they’d be okay. Your assignment is to discern what impels Jehovah’s Witnesses to do what almost nobody else does, make a full mea culpa, and then take your leave as gracefully as you can.

Thanks @scholar JW for a succinct and clear summary of your position on the 20-year gap (several pages back).
MY SUMMARY below adds 4 or 5 items that I didn't spell out in posts yet, but the rest are a subset of the points from posts already in this thread.
The Watchtower publications depend on SECULAR chronology to be able to attach a BCE date to any Bible event. There are no BCE or CE (AD) dates in the Bible anywhere. Per the current Watchtower Library going back to 1950 for the Watchtower and the 1970's for other publications: there are 11,857 separate references to BCE dates in the current "Watchtower Library" and the MAJORITY of them are for the three dates: 539, 537 and 607.  Every time we ever read in a WTS publication the term "B.C.E." it means the WTS has depended on SECULAR chronology.
The WTS fully accepts the SECULAR chronology indicating Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. The exact same SECULAR chronology indicates that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE. The exact same SECULAR Chronology indicates that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587 BCE. The Bible associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible also associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible associates both years with this event, so SECULAR scholars must choose between 587 and 586 The Bible's ambiguity here is "cleverly" reassigned from the Bible to SECULAR scholars so that it can repeatedly be used as a means to discredit scholars -- so that both dates can be dismissed Discrediting scholars feeds into the repeated idea that 539 is now part of Bible chronology but 587/586 is only SECULAR chronology This allows the WTS to keep the original theory promoted by Barbour and Russell that all one has to do is go back 70 years from 536 (now 539*/538/537) to get the destruction of Jerusalem in 606 (now 607) and both of these dates can be promoted as BIBLE chronology. Any attempt to show the fallacy of the argument, or the evidence against the interpretation, can now be associated with choosing SECULAR experts over the BIBLE, and not recognizing that the SECULAR "wisdom of the world is foolishness with God" This tradition/theory/interpretation that we now call "BIBLE chronology" now requires that ALL the evidence for the SECULAR chronology that we accept for 539 must otherwise be rejected in order to support 607. Therefore the WTS must add 20 years to ALL the chronology evidence BEFORE 539 and not touch any dates from the same evidence AFTER 539. Unfortunately for the WTS theory, the Bible locks in the length of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar to 43 years, and in support of external evidence for 539, the WTS is partially reliant on SECULAR inscriptions referring to the length of the reign of the last king conquered by Cyrus in 539 (the 17 years of Nabonidus) That would mean that the 20-year gap must be theorized to fit within a period known to be only 6 years long according to ALL the existing chronological evidence of the period (from the exact same set of evidence accepted for 539) The need to turn that 6-year period into a 24-year period becomes an awkward quest because of the inscriptions, kings lists, and astronomy tablets that give consistent evidence that there is not even a one-year gap anywhere in the period. NOT PRESENTED YET: The evidence from the TENS of THOUSANDS of mundane business documents is just as damaging to the WTS theory. These small clay tablets are spread throughout EACH and EVERY year of the entire documented period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Nabonidus, Cyrus, etc. They even exist for EACH and EVERY year for the short reign of the two kings in those 6 years where the WTS needs to place the 20-year gap. NOT PRESENTED YET: There are business tablets for EVERY year of the known reigns of EACH king, and sometimes thousands of tablets for some of those years, but still absolutely NONE to show evidence for any of the theorized gap of 20 years. (Out of say 50,000 existing tablets, we should therefore expect about 20,000 additional tablets to cover those years, yet not one of those "20,000" missing tablets has shown up. (The WTS has proposed that evidence may exist but has just not been discovered yet.) Therefore, while 100% of the tablet evidence supports the known chronology, there is still ZERO tablet evidence for any possible longer reigns or additional reigns for anyone during the period. Worse yet for the WTS theory, there are even connecting tablets that give us the transition between each king and the next king which makes the gap theory impossible, according to all the evidence. NOT PRESENTED YET: There is even a subset of these business documents all related to the same "banking institution" that provides a separate chronology of transitioning "bank presidents" throughout the same entire period. They provide the exact same connected, relative chronology as the Babylonian king lists, the astronomy tablets, the official Babylonian chronicles, and other inscriptions. NOT PRESENTED YET: The WTS admits that the Babylonians were able to predict eclipses based on various nearly-18-year lunar cycles. If they weren't using an extremely accurate calendar they couldn't have done this. Any currently undocumented gap in the chronology would have completely thrown off their ability to predict eclipses. To add "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS quotes from experts about evidence from astronomy and inscriptions and often adds (with no explanation) the WTS chronology in parentheses or brackets in very close context to the quotations from experts and scholarly references and encyclopedias. Sometimes even adding the bracketed WTS chronology within the quotation marks from the expert sources, giving the impression that there is expert scholarly support for WTS chronology. To add further "support" for the 20-year gap, the ACTUAL evidence that has been consistently supported and presented for the last 150 plus years by HUNDREDS of other scholars, is often simply called to "Carl Olof Jonsson's evidence" or "COJ's evidence." Because COJ was disfellowshipped for presenting the evidence already supported by hundreds of others, it "cleverly" leads the average JW to believe that SECULAR evidence is apostate evidence. (Except when the WTS uses the same set of evidence for 539.)  To add further "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS made use of Rolf Furuli's book in two articles in the Watchtower in 2011  (*** w11 11/1 p. 25) claiming that some of the lunar data on a tablet dated to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is a better fit for a different year of his reign, 20 years earlier. (Same idea had been tried for a different reign in a 1969 Watchtower, *** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186) Furuli's ideas about this tablet and the WTS focus on it has tended to imply to that this tablet (VAT 4956) is somehow all-important to the secular chronology. But it is only one piece of many that consistently point EXACTLY to the 587 date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar and EXACTLY to the 586 date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. NOT PRESENTED YET: Furuli's ideas about the tablet have been thoroughly debunked and shown to contain numerous amateurish errors. Furthermore the book inadvertently contains evidence against itself which indicates the real strength of the evidence against the WTS use of "607." Russell did not directly use the 7 times of Daniel 4 to prove 606 (now 607) and indicated that methods using the 7 times (based more on Leviticus, not Daniel) were inferior methods to the use of "God's dates" (meaning counting forward 40 years from 1874). The use of (and definition of) what happened in 1914 changed after 1914, and the predicted fulfillments were moved to 1915, then 1918, then 1925. The Watchtower even temporarily used the expression "End of the Gentile Times in 1915." After the slippage and failures of expectations, the only useful prediction that remained was that the "Gentile Times Ended in 1914." But this was not about Jesus' invisible parousia (still 1874) or Jesus' invisible enthronement as King (still 1878) but was an expression directly related to the visible Zionist movement in Palestine. After an adjusted emphasis on Zionism AFTER 1914, along with a new emphasis on on Jesus' coming/arriving/returning to his temple for judgment in 1918, Rutherford finally dropped the Zionist connection to the "End of the Gentile Times" around 1929, and 1874/1878 was also soon dropped so that both the parousia and the kingship both were now associated with 1914. And the Gentile nations merely lost their "lease" to rule, even though they were now ruling more powerfully than ever.

(Quora question) Besides being a significant source for literacy in lands where it is poor, they are well known for disaster relief, prompting taking care of their own, in catastrophic times. They thus provide a good example for other groups to follow, for there is no reason that anyone cannot do as they do.  In recent years, some critics have attempted to spin this exercise of brotherly love as a lack of concern for anyone else. They do this even though they themselves would—say, in the event of an earthquake—check on family members first, never dreaming that anyone would frame that as indifference to the suffering of others. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a family, frankly not large enough to fix everyone. If opponents refuse to acknowledge that love of God can form the basis of family, that is hardly the Witnesses’ fault, is it?  

It’s impossible for me to care less about your library, Georgie …. as I stated, I was just trying to verify whether or not you were lying about that particular book being in your personal library … which I considered to be highly improbable.
 

I'm sure you know that the BCE date 537 for Cyrus 2nd year is almost as well attested as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th or 18th.
But it's not attested to at all as the end of a 70-year period of exile. Ezra says the Jews were released by a decree in the first year of Cyrus. The Insight book admits that Bible writers sometimes used a non-accession year method, so that this could have referred to the idea that Cyrus immediately decreed the Jews to be free in 539. That's the actual year that you agree is the year Cyrus conquered Babylon, right?
So according to the Bible it could be 539 when the Jews were decreed to be free. And therefore when they got back to their homeland in the 7th month of 538, not 537.
(Ezra 3:1) . . .When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities. . .
Does this supposed contention between 538 and 537 perhaps mean that you should ignore both dates and say it was really in 557? Hmmm. That's what you do with the supposed contention for Nebuchadnezzar's reign.
In fact that idea of 539 for the decree and 538 for getting back home is a much better Biblical fit to what Chronicles says:
(2 Chronicles 36:20, 21) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.
It's pretty obvious that the kingdom of Persia began to reign in 539 BCE not 537 BCE. The Bible says nothing about the 70 years having to wait until they got all the way back to their homeland anyway. And we know that many of them never went home at all, or waited for many more years. 
Of course, 538 instead of your "celebrated" date makes the most sense here even if Ezra didn't say it. Unless you think ALL the Jews were lazy and didn't really want to get back home when they were freed until nearly 24 months after Cyrus conquered Babylon. 

it's pretty obvious that the Bible clearly states it was Cyrus 1st year, which you agree is 538, but another year is sacrificed to the altar of 607 so it had to be changed from the most logical agreed upon date 538, to 537. It really tells me that there is no respect for the Bible's dates. For the "idolized" Watchtower scholars they are satisfied with just a set of arbitrary dates chosen on both ends of the redefined 70 years, so that 1914 will still works.
 And yet it's not used as an anchor point going backwards because the same data and evidence that made 539 a so-called anchor date is thrown out the window immediately so that a 20 year gap is theorized to be in their somewhere, else a special interpretation for 1914 won't work. And then the same thing happens going forward hardly 100 years later, and the WTS needs to add 10 years to the evidenced chronology for another WTS interpretation to work: 
*** 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.
Also, you continue to posit that the idea of two Biblically conflicting dates produces contentiousness among scholars, and therefore you are willing to dismiss both candidates. Yet the Watchtower publications figured out the reason for the difference between 18th and 19th years in the Bible accounts. You still think that you need to be so concerned with secular issues when it seems the Bible is actually clear after all? That solution, unless you disagree with it, will turn your so-called problematic secular dates back into Bible dates, courtesy of your own idolized scholars.
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall. 
Same explanation works here:
*** w69 2/1 p. 88 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? ***
The Bible record is quite detailed in its account of the first punitive expedition against the kingdom of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar) in his seventh regnal year (or eighth year from his accession to the throne). (Jer. 52:28; 2 Ki. 24:12) 
 

All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again.
Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC
So please stop asking for something I have claimed is not even there. What if I said I am specifically asking for you to find Isaac Newton's writings in the Quran? If I asked you several times and you couldn't answer, would it be right for me to claim you are just being evasive?  
I don't work backwards from 568 BCE. 
OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. 
It's as if I asked you again and again: I'm asking you specfically: Please don't be evasive and tell me where in the Quran does it specifically include Sir Isaac Newton's writings?
That's good. I meant to say "the book you recently cited from" rather than "the book you most recently cited from." It even occurred to me that I may have noticed a more recent additional citing of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings" which you had already quoted from a few times earlier. After I wrote that phrase, I even wondered if you might try to make an issue of it, but decided it was too trivial to go back and edit. Anyway, I meant the book you recently cited from here, about 16 hours ago from the time I'm writing this:
I like these two books of his. He makes some connections I hadn't seen before. I'm glad you are going through them.
But I agree wholeheartedly with that possibility. So how does agreeing with Dr Wiseman make my argument fall short? Are you saying his argument falls short? Why? It seems like you just want to play some kind of "tit for tat" game instead of having a serious dialogue about the evidence.
There you go again with the same non-sensical question. Wiseman clearly states the same thing I have stated on this forum off and on for over 10 years now, that the portion of the Chronicles covering Nebuchadnezzar falls several years short of his entire reign. In fact there are parts of 33 years that are not in the Chronicle according to Wiseman, from part of the 11th on up to his 43rd year. If he somehow mentioned that something from his 18th year was there after all, that would be quite a contradiction for a scholar. And he has easily earned the right to be called one, not like me.
Exactly. Now it seems you get it. 

Nonetheless, from this point on, I strapping on a guitar when preaching among the young.

Yeah, I suppose you’re right. I probably should have clarified from the start that it was a question encountered on social media, not my own. I’ll do that should there be any reincarnations.

This is Georg's frequent practice.

Just how am I “protected”?
… and what the hell does that even mean?
Your hatred and jealousy of me has distorted your thinking.
You see things so very clearly that DO NOT EXIST.
HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE:

The bottom line of all this bickering and insults, and “dueling experts”, accompanied by frantic toothless banjo solos is this:
Armageddon did NOT occur in 1874, 1888, 1914, 1915, 1925  … or 1975.  I did not occur  before the end of the millennium, in 2000.
So …. does it REALLY matter about 539, or 537, or 607 etc.?
What BOTH sides are trying to support … DIDN’T HAPPEN.
There is not the slightest shred of evidence to support ANYTHING other than a “Great War” between nations … happened in 1914.

JW Insider
That is correct. WT Bible Chronology has indeed adjusted dates before the NB Period using a 20-year gap manifest when comparing WT Chronology with that of NB Chronology and that is what Chronologists do as a matter of course. Such scholars look at the available evidence- secular and biblical evidence combining this with an interpretation and methodology to construct a scheme of Chronology.
This is false. There is no excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE as it ignores the biblical and historical facts of the Jewish/Babylonian Exile. 'So-called' excellent evidence is simply a reference to COJ's 'seventeen lines of evidence' which attempts to disprove 607 BCE which has not settled the dilemma of the 586 or 587 BCE as dates for the Fall of Jerusalem. If there is such a body of evidence which disproves 607 BCE then why is it the case that no one can provide one single line of evidence disproving 607 BCE for this has not and cannot be done?
The simple fact is that COJ's research over seven years ending in 1975 was simply a rehash of previous research carried out by SDA scholars in Australia from the fifties so it was nothing new for the WT Society from the time of  Charles Russell and the early Bible Students had published much material on Chronology which dealt with many of the issues covered by COJ especially regarding the Gentile Times and the nature and chronology of Jeremiah's '70 years'.
COJ simply followed the existing interpretation of Chronology accepted by most if not all scholars prior to 1977 and afterwards up to the present day. It can be argued that the 'preponderance of existing evidence can just as easily support 607 BCE simply using 'fine tuning' using the missing 20 years to align secular NB Chronology with Bible Chronology. Jehovah's Witnesses have shown competence in Bible Chronology as demonstrated in WT publications since Russell's time as not only have they determined the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem as 607 BCE but also produced a chronology for all of the Kings of the Divided Monarchy something which COJ never attempted and is necessary to provide and historical context for any dates with that period of Jewish history.
Correct! Such evidence in the construction of a scheme of Chronology requires two things: Methodology and Interpretation. WT scholars have a discreet methodology and a biblical interpretation viz. the 70 years and the Exile which proves the validity of 607 BCE for the Fall and thus far has not been disproved by any other scheme of Chronology.
scholar JW 
 

This is another example of "AI enhanced" hallucinations. Whatever source created this response is just so incorrect that I decided to mark each incorrect sentence in red-orange, and each misleading statement in yellow, and each true statement in green.
It's pretty obvious that "AI" tools have scraped from conversations about 607, and often pick up mistaken quotes and will now even potentially pick up their own reprinted mistakes and regurgitate them as if those mistakes have now been validated by their use on a forum even such as this one. 
For a quick explanation of my markup, note the following.
Wiseman made good use of the Nabonidus Chronicle but did not rely "heavily" on it for dating purposes -- he states that they are only for relative chronologies --  and therefore he never tried to "establish" a chronology from it or other Babylonian Chronicles. Also Wiseman wrote the book "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings;" He did not "rely" on it. I just googled to see if it was written in 1961 and google's AI responded: Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) by D. J. Wiseman was written in 586.  The Chronicles are indeed fragmentary, and do not include the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, but this is irrelevant if we are merely trying to pin a BCE date on his 18th/19th year, which is all that Witnesses are interested in. If the Chronicles were either totally accurate or totally inaccurate about Jerusalem specifically, it wouldn't make an iota of difference to us. All we want to do is know the date for his 18th/19th year. If they are fragmentary but still gave us pertinent information to help us date his 8th year, his 1st year, or his 37th, then that is plenty of information from which to derive his 18th19th year. The relevant period is any one that includes Nebuchadnezzar's reign, therefore the Chronicles are particularly good for the relevant period.  There is nothing in the Babylonian Chronicles about the Jews in particular, so there is no information that would show bias towards them. "Dating inconsistencies" are irrelevant because there aren't any. This happens to be one period of ancient history with the most well-documented and testable chronology. If we didn't think we knew better, we'd say that it must have been providentially Jehovah's will that this period was the most well-documented and easily understood, with literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence all pointing to the same BCE dates, and NOT ONE INCONSISTENCY. The only problem is that we as Witnesses REJECT the obvious conclusion of all this evidence.  Wisemen never interprets Neb's 37th year as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem as stated above. Wiseman interprets it according to the prevailing evidence, which would therefore point to a 587/586 destruction of Jerusalem.  No one believes the VAT 4956 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 37th year, not JWs, not WIseman, not Furuli.  Any differences in interpretation over the exact year of Neb's ascension to the throne have no real impact on the dating of his regnal years. All the evidence is very consistent as to how the Babylonians counted ascension years and regnal years. There is no difference in interpretation for Babylonian documents, which are shown to be perfectly consistent throughout the entire period. This might refer to the Bible's inconsistent use "ordinal" vs. "cardinal" counting of regnal years, as explained in our Aid book and Insight book.  Archaeological evidence does indeed point to 587/586 for Neb's 19th year, but Wiseman does NOT contradict this evidence. He makes consistent use of the evidence. Lack of independent corroboration weakens the 607 argument? Mostly true, but there is absolutely NO corroboration of the 607 argument to begin with. Much less any additional independent corroboration. There is simply ZERO evidence for the 607 argument, Biblical or otherwise. And the implication about no independent corroboration misses the point that there are SEVERAL INDEPENDENT lines of evidence all consistently pointing to the 587/586 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year.  Very few really argues that Wiseman has a theological agenda. He does try to support and defend the Bible as history in certain cases of apparent discrepancies. But this has almost no effect on the time period in question. In this case it is those with a traditional Biblical interpretation that goes against evidence who argue against the evidence.  There is really no "scholarly" debate at all about the overall time period in question, and especially not about the specific BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This might sound like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but the point is that this period is just too well documented for scholars to debate. Pretend scholars might pretend that it's debatable, and unfortunately their pretensions carry a lot of weight with people who want desperately to believe they are right. It seems that this is because they are in support of a tradition that would create a lot of discomfort to many of us if we had to admit it was a false tradition. Wiseman's presentation of the overall evidence about the years of the Neo-Babylonian period is universally accepted by scholars, because he accepts evidence and does NOT accept the "607 argument" as claimed above.  I should mention that a person may be a scholar in a different field and therefore might disagree with scholars in a field that he is not that familiar with. For example, a scholar in the field of Shakespeare Studies might try to find reasons to disagree with a scholar who argues about the Laws of Physics. But if a Shakespeare scholar claims he knows that the speed of light must be closer to 100,000 miles per hour rather than closer to 186,000 miles per second, this doesn't really mean that the "186,000 argument" is not universally accepted by all scholars.  As I said, it's hardly worth trying to glean the wheat from the chaff on AI enhanced writing. Hope it helps a bit. I won't even make an attempt to respond to the many glaring errors in G88's recent posts. 

Now if Tucker had asked Putin whether Moscow girls really do make him sing and shout, then we’d have something to hang our hats on.

See the Chihuahua?

I also don't have any issues. The thing is, James (Pudgy) thinks, he is the only one that can insult here.
I don't object to the church being informed of the terrible crimes committed by an individual. As stated in Matthew 18, if someone refuses to acknowledge and repent privately, it is appropriate for the church to be made aware. If that individual continues to refuse to repent, they should be treated as a tax collector. In the time of the Jews, tax collectors were greatly disliked (hated). It is important for children to have a visual understanding of who is being identified as a pedophile, as it will help them to avoid such individuals. Therefore, I support this advocacy. If these people are scared for life due to their foolish position, I see no reason to stand in their way, haha!
In the United States, there is a growing concern as some individuals manage to evade the requirement of registering as sex offenders, leaving others permanently affected. However, we can remain hopeful that, over time, these issues will be properly addressed.
 

I guess that would mean Wally McNasty is linked to James Thomas Rook Jr, or is it Pudgy now? lol!

....your GOOD will be done, ........
lol