Ann O'Maly

It's there too, of course (in your 4th edition):
Chronicles: Neo-Babylonian, 100-105, 148; nature of, 100; reliability of, 104, 105; BM 21946, 101 (picture), 102, 201-203, 207, 295, 296, 339,340, 342, 343; Nabonidus Chronicle, 102, 103 (with picture); BM 21901, 233; BM 22047, 346 But this sort of begs the whole question about what you have been doing for the last few decades. From what I can see on J-W Discussion, you have apparently made a kind of multi-decade career out of Jonsson-bashing, and yet you don't even know what's in his book? Have you ever read his book? I could quote a dozen other times from J-W Discussion where you talk about how Jonsson fails to do this or that, and now I have to wonder whether any of this has been honest.
That's not true either, of course. At the end of this post I'll add an image from page 254 which includes it among all the most important documented activities of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. A longer discussion of how BM 21946 relates to Nebuchadnezzar's 7/8th yr takes up several paragraphs on page 296. An even longer discussion of the importance of BM 21956 as it relates to his 7/8th yr is on page 342 and 343 of Jonsson's book. Here's a portion of pages 342-3:
Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoiachin is also described in the Babylonian chronicle B.M. 21946. For the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar this chronicle says: From Dec. 598 (or Jan. 597) to March 597 B.C.E.: ”The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king. A king of his own choice he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.”[68] NebuchadnezzarÂ’s army left Babylon “in the month of Kislev,” which was the ninth month, and seized Jehoiachin “on the second day of the month Adar,” that is, the twelfth month.[69] This means that even if the army left Babylon in the beginning of Kislev (which this year began on December 18, 598 B.C.E., Julian calendar), the interval between the day it left Babylon until the city was captured and its king (Jehoiachin) seized, on the second Adar (which corresponded to March 16, 597), was three months at the most.[70] Footnotes: [67] It is interesting to note that in this first deportation Nebuchadnezzar brought only “some” of the vessels from the temple in Jerusalem to Babylon, and these were not even the “valuable” vessels. This strongly supports the conclusion that the siege of Jerusalem at this time did not end up in the capture of the city. If it did, why did he not take the valuable vessels from the temple? If, on the other hand, the siege was raised because Jehoiakim capitulated and paid a tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, it is quite understandable that Jehoiakim did not include the most valuable vessels in the tribute. [68] A. K. Grayson, op. cit., p. 102. The chronicle is in complete agreement with the description of this siege given in the Bible. (2 Kings 24:8–17; 2 Chronicles 36:9–10.) [69] The Babylonians had a second Ululu (an intercalary month) in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, thus making Kislev and Adar the tenth and thirteenth months respectively that year, although they were normally the ninth and twelfth calendar months . This fact does not affect the discussion above. [70] If the Babylonian army left Babylon some time after Jehoiachin had ascended the throne, the siege was of very short duration, two months at most and probably less, as the time the army needed to march from Babylon to Jerusalem has to be subtracted from the three months from Kislev to Adar. Such a march took at least one month. It is possible, however, that a part of the army had left Babylon earlier, as 2 Kings 24:10–11 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem some time after the siege had begun. The reason for the short duration of the siege was JehoiachinÂ’s surrender to Nebuchadnezzar on Adar 2 or March 16, 597 B.C.E., Julian calendar. (2 Kings 24:12) For an excellent discussion of this siege, see William H. Shea, “NebuchadnezzarÂ’s Chronicle and the Date of the Destruction of Lachish III,” in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, No. 111 (1979), pp. 113f. I suspect you are not truly puzzled in the least by his treatment of that point. If you really were you should certainly not try to pass yourself off as any kind of student of chronology. It's the entire Neo-Babylonian period that is now "pivotal" through "absolute" chronological dating. The entire period is known through established, chronometric (calendar) dating. The entire range from Nabopolassar through Cambyses and beyond is considered "absolute" in this sense by chronologists who study this historical period.
Yes, it's true that WT "chronology" places the events of 597 in 617. That's easy to understand though completely outside the context of chronology:
It's because the writers at the WTS created a never-ending problem for themselves by adding 20 years to 587 to get 607 to force it to fit 1914. So they are stuck adding it to every date prior to 607, too. They clearly haven't yet figured out how or when or if they are going to fix the problem. It's no more about real chronology than 1874 was really one of "God's dates, not ours" just because it was claimed to be such in the Watch Tower publications. But remember, the Watchtower kept 1874 on the books for 64 years, until finally it no longer was one of "God's dates, not ours."
That means that for  64 years, 1874 had come from God, and not from any private interpretation:
(2 Peter 1:20,21) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. The Watchtower didn't fix that particular date problem until 1943, just a year after Rutherford died. Now we know it wasn't about real chronology, but it was a private interpretation after all.  Perhaps a hint about why can be found in this quote referencing Rutherford and those who agreed with him.
"We understand . . [a person]. . who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit. . . ."  (g1924, December 17, p.179) Rutherford had a very similar outlook on Russell which kept him from overcoming all of those previously-labeled "God's dates" for many years. That's why the discussion in the May 1922 Watchtower is so interesting in that it points to what Rutherford thinks is at the heart of the chronology problem: it's coming from those who are falling away from the faith they once put in Russell, who had died in 1916. Apparently Fred Franz in 1943 showed he had fallen from the faith he once put in the late Rutherford, who had died in 1942. Apparently, by the late 1970's, many more had fallen away from the faith they had once put in Fred Franz.
The 4th edition of Jonsson's book has been further expanded online, by about 130 pages, and this moves the index, too, but the index is still the original one, and the rest of the book, through page 380 is still exactly the same as the printed 4th edition. The index does not reference the added material.

Do you think people will just believe you without checking?
Jonsson even has pictures of it. This is from page 101 of Jonsson's book: (Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4 edition).
The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 This chronicle covers the period from Nabopolassar’s 21st year (605/04 B.C.E.) to Nebuchadnezzar’s 10th year (595/94 B.C.E.). Photo used courtesy of D. J. Wiseman (shown in his Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Plate VI). Here is from page 102:
The extant (actually existing) parts of Chronicles 2-7 cover the following regnal years: TABLE 2: EXTANT PARTS OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES 2–7 CHRONICLE NO.         RULER                   REGNAL YEARS COVERED No.2 = B.M. 25127      Nabopolassar     acc.-year – 3       3 = B.M. 21901      Nabopolassar     10 – 17       4 = B.M. 22047      Nabopolassar     18 – 20       5 = B.M. 21946      Nabopolassar      21              ” ” ”                   Nebuchadnezzar  acc.-year – 10        6 = B.M. 25124    Neriglissar             3        7 = B.M. 35382    Nabonidus             1 – 11               ” ” ”                  Nabonidus             17 In all, the Neo-Babylonian period (625–539 B.C.E.) includes a total of eighty-seven regnal years. As is seen in the preceding table, less than half of these years are covered by the preserved parts of the chronicles. Yet some important information may be gathered from them. Chronicle 5 (B.M. 21946) shows that Nabopolassar ruled Babylon for twenty-one years, and that he was succeeded by his son Nebuchadnezzar. That part of the text says: For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the eighth day of the month Ab he died. In the month of Elul Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month he ascended the royal throne in Babylon. Jonsson also mentions it on page 199, 201, 207, 208, 209, 254 (7 times on that page), 296, 315, 338, 339, 342, 347, 349, 506, 512, 514 and 515.

And the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar is not in dispute, either, for it is a date universally recognized as 605 BCE.

What @scholar JW says is true @Anna, You could say that 539, the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon, has the same accuracy as 587, the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. But you may still not be clear about whether the Bible means Jerusalem was destroyed in the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Of course, we can know that Jerusalem was destroyed in either the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and this is absolutely as certain as knowing that Babylon fell in the "1st" (accession) year of Cyrus.
I assume you can probably see through the magical sleight of hand that says that since you only know for certain that it was 586 or 587, then you must believe that that the new "wondrous" date is certainly .... wait for it.....607!  Tadaaaaah!
 

True. If they had submitted to Babylon and paid their dues as they were supposed to, the city would have been left alone. Jer. 27:6-14.
--------------------------------------------------
But 597 BCE can be. This is where a dated event in the Bible and the same event dated in the Babylonian Chronicle coincide. The BCE year can be derived from dated astronomical tablets - the same method used for pinning BCE years on kings' reigns, Babylon's fall, and Jerusalem's destruction.

True. If they had submitted to Babylon and paid their dues as they were supposed to, the city would have been left alone. Jer. 27:6-14.
--------------------------------------------------
But 597 BCE can be. This is where a dated event in the Bible and the same event dated in the Babylonian Chronicle coincide. The BCE year can be derived from dated astronomical tablets - the same method used for pinning BCE years on kings' reigns, Babylon's fall, and Jerusalem's destruction.

True. If they had submitted to Babylon and paid their dues as they were supposed to, the city would have been left alone. Jer. 27:6-14.
--------------------------------------------------
But 597 BCE can be. This is where a dated event in the Bible and the same event dated in the Babylonian Chronicle coincide. The BCE year can be derived from dated astronomical tablets - the same method used for pinning BCE years on kings' reigns, Babylon's fall, and Jerusalem's destruction.

Yes, it is simple and clear, but I wish I could agree with you that it is also correct. I cannot logically reconcile the fact that WT agrees on 539, but has a problem with 587, if I am to believe that both dates are derived from the same sources. Why would one be false and the other true? It seems as illogical as saying 587 is a correct date, but 539 is a wrong date,  so we will count forward 70 years from 587, and insist that 517 is when Cyrus conquered Babylon.
 

I think these comments show a lot of insight. Out of every 100 scholars who have taken an interest in this time period prior to 1970, 99% of them have problem never heard of 1914, and yet all 100 of those scholars inadvertently discredited our theory about 1914. However, like @Gone Fishing said, I do think that for JWs and exJWs involved in this discussion, 1914 must be at the heart of the matter. How can it not be? The only reason that we, as JWs, take any interest at all in 607 is because of 1914. The only reason we take any interest in the 70 years itself is because of 1914. The only reason we discuss Daniel 4 is 1914. A year has never gone by since the 1900's, when the WTS did not mention 1914 several times.
We already have 68 years of searchable Watchtowers in the WT CD since 1950, and we can easily see the importance. No other "prophetic" date (BCE) is considered even a tenth as important to us as those which are said to support 1914. For example:
We date Adam's creation to 4026 B.C.E. and Watchtowers since 1950 have mentioned this date only about 18 times in only 13 different Watchtower magazines. (10 of the 13 were in the period from 1966 to 1975). We date the beginning of the 70 weeks of years to 455 C.E. and this has been mentioned in about 45 different Watchtowers since 1950. We date the end of the 70 weeks of years to 36 C.E. and this has been mentioned in about 95 different Watchtowers. 1914 of course gets mentioned several times a year, often in most of the Watchtower magazine issues that are published in any particular year: nearly 4,024 mentions since 1950. 607 has been mentioned in at least one Watchtower per year (usually several times a year) in every year since 1950 (except 2010): over 850 times. 539, of course, is mentioned as the "evidence" for 607, but with only about 250 mentions since 1950. So, you make a good point, Ann, about scholars, but the subtext among JWs and ex-JWs is always going to be related to 1914.
This was pretty obvious when members of the Writing Department and researchers at Bethel quickly realized that if they questioned 607, they would likely be questioned themselves with a view to being disfellowshipped for apostasy. If you questioned 607, it was considered obvious that you must also be questioning 1914. Anyone could connect the dots. In fact, when Carl Jonsson's manuscript arrived at Brooklyn Bethel, two of the writers told me it was called "the hot potato" by several others because no one wanted it to land on their desk. They knew it was a Lose-Lose situation. For months it just remained on a shelf. People made excuses why they didn't have the time to address it.
A lot of people who don't take the time to look into such things don't realize that there is always some "Biblical" method to take prophecy and find a way to interpret it to reach somewhere into every single century, perhaps every single decade. Russell and various adventist-minded predecessors had been able to single out every decade since the 1780's to the 1900's with time-based prophecies. There was so much repetition, intertwining, and "ring of truth" about such dates, under Russell, that they soon became "God's dates." (1874, etc.) After Rutherford dropped almost every one of those old time prophecies, the only ones remaining that could reach into his own century (to 1914) were the 7 times of Leviticus and Daniel. After the 7 times of Leviticus was dropped, Daniel 4 was all the WT had left to reach into the 20th century. But look around the Internet, and you'll see that there is still enough numerology waiting to be extracted from Bible prophecies to reach every decade in the 2000's too. A little bit of 2520 days here, and a little bit of 2300 days there, and I'm sure there would be fodder for the year 2333, 2553, 2370, 2590, if this system could last that long. And if those methods ran out, there's always the potential claim someone could make that it was only unreliable secular chronology that told us Jesus was born in 2 B.C.E., when reliable "Bible chronology" obviously puts his birth closer to 100 C.E., then 200 C.E. etc., etc., as needed. 
This is why, for myself, I'm not so concerned that 586 and 587 are the most reliable dates for the destruction of Jerusalem. It's only because of what the Christian Greek Scriptures say about chronology that I could still not have accepted the entire 1914 theory. I couldn't accept it for scriptural reasons, even if Jerusalem had actually been destroyed on June 28, 607 or July 28, 607 B.C.E. and it was proven to be 2520 years to the day before Archduke Ferdinand was shot or WWI started in 1914.

Anna
I enjoyed reading your comments and I agree with many of your observations and sentiments. Chronology is indeed hard work and beyond the capacity of most brothers and sisters not so much intellectually but that of resources. The beauty of WT  Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism. It took COJ seven years to research and prepare a treatise to refute our Chronology but I believe he failed miserably.
I do not believe that our wondrous Chronology has a 'Archille's heel' by means of 607 BCE because it is based on solid Biblical evidence such as the '70 years', a firm Pivotal Date-539 BCE and has a meaningful prophetic outcome, 1914 CE the time of the Great War. It is no 'dead end 'date such as 586 or 587 BCE. In short, the beauty of our Chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and defensible going right back to Adam, the first Man. It works whereas others fail!
scholar JW

Absolutely. This is what they are relying on - readers taking on trust what is being said/written without properly checking - to hoodwink the uninformed. If the article/book looks technical and has lots of footnotes or endnotes, it gives the appearance of being well-researched, truthful, or balanced. But not necessarily so (Hislop's Two Babylons is a prime example). And it isn't always easy getting hold of reference works - especially in these kinds of niche subjects. Thankfully, we have the internet now!
Uh oh, that's how I started with this subject many years ago - lots of questions, mostly a spectator in these mind-bendingly involved discussions, limited time, energy and resources as a wife, mother of young children, multiple other responsibilities, etc., etc., but with a burning interest to get to the bottom of all these niggles, lots of scraps of paper with brick diagrams and notes all over the place ... 
'Wanting to know' will impel you to build up a decent working knowledge little by little.

Then we can agree that this reference, would be “false* to claim 99.9999% certainty on ancient writings since no one was there to authentic what was “copied” didn’t have readjusted writings to boaster that kingdoms claims? Or for that matter, writing errors due to linguistic incompatibilities.

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

You are entitled to be a flat-earther or believe in flying pink unicorns. But it doesn't make your opinions factual. Scrutiny, under the light of objective evidence, will thoroughly debunk those 'entitled' opinions.
How do Grayson's revisions, the chronicle's lacunae, and brief highlights of each regnal year affect the neo-Babylonian timeline? Because, this is what we are talking about here - whether chunks of time are missing to the tune of e.g. 20 years (WT) or 200 years (Thompson) - not whether every single thing a king did in his reign was recorded for posterity (even the Gospels aren't the 'complete story' - John 21:25). We CAN establish with 99.9999% certainty that the NB timeline has no 20-year or 200-year chunks of time missing.
The diary has been tested. It was dated to a clearly marked regnal year and had 30 or so celestial observations recorded on it. The astronomical data only matches one year: 568-7 BCE. It can be no other. Even if the scribe had written the wrong regnal year or king (he didn't), the astronomical information would still only fit 568-7 BCE. The sky doesn't lie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad you mentioned him. He's one who has NOT read COJ's book, but has independently researched and pieced together a timeline from the archaeological, historical and biblical evidence. Surprise, surprise - his findings for the NB and early Persian periods coincide with the standard, conventional timeline that reputable historians and Bible chronologists use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is wrong with counting back 70 years from 539 or 537 BCE.
The problem is assigning events to 609 or 607 BCE that history testifies happened in other years. Watchtower asserts that 609 BCE was when Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar and that 607 BCE was when Jerusalem was destroyed. Archaeological records testify that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even on the throne yet.
Another problem is how the '70 years' are understood: As the period of nations' servitude to Babylon (according to Jeremiah)? Or as the duration of Jerusalem' and Judah's being 'desolated, without an inhabitant' (Russell/Barbour's interpretation resulting from putting together two separate ideas)?
Yet another problem is insisting the Jews were repatriated in 537 BCE (or previously 536 BCE) despite there being no concrete evidence it was 537 and that a 538 BCE return is not only a viable date but more likely.
 

That's the first time I've ever heard of anyone supposing those are two different alternative dates for VAT4956. Rolf Furuli, for example, wrote a book that claimed that VAT4956 could refer to both 587 AND 588 for its lunar observations, but admits that it clearly refers to both 568 AND 567 for the other astronomical observations.
No one I have ever heard of thinks that VAT 4956 is supposed to be read to coincide with 587 instead of 588.
LOL. You seem to be having a lot of fun. Let's review: Your claim was this from your quote repeated here:
I claimed that you were correct, in that everyone is entitled to apply whatever standards they wish. But if anyone wants to publish their reasons or try to convince others with their evidence, then they SHOULD be willing to have it scrutinized. You just said they should be entitled to NOT have it scrutinized. I disagree. For example:
you should have the right to scrutinize what I say you should have the right to scrutinize what Grayson says you should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says you should have the right to scrutinize what the Watchtower says Furuli should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says Darren Thompson should have the right to scrutinize what Furuli says I should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says The Watchtower should have the right to scrutinize what Ptolemy says I agree with this, and I think most Witnesses are trained to agree with it. Even though you say you don't, I think even you agree with it. So I had to wonder why you were indicating that this author apparently had a right NOT to be scrutinized. Surely everyone, published or not, is entitled to their opinion about someone else's published work. 
Exactly. It seemed you were the only one who thought that was even a question, however, based on your odd claim that a particular author should not be scrutinized. At least we can now see you don't really believe it. For me, however, that whole diversion about "opinion and scrutiny"just seemed like a contrived red herring, because the question I was addressing was what you asked Ann about the relevance of VAT4956.
 

No. The author is saying that VAT 4956 does matter, and therefore it should be precisely redated to his own preferences which are about 200 years off from Grayson, P&D, Furuli, COJ, Watchtower, scholar JW, etc.
No. The author does not believe these are the possible reference sets of dates for Nebuchadnezzar's reign indicated by VAT4956. Nor for any of the other sets of dates you mentioned, either. The quoted page (35) was indicating dates that the author does NOT accept. You agree with this right?
Didn't know you or I or anyone else was looking for a "gotcha" moment. LOL. But it should be obvious that VAT 4956 cannot actually agree with all possible dates, including 607/606. I've never heard of anyone who would think of publishing such a claim, have you?
What skeptics? scholar JW? Foreigner? you? Thompson? If you are talking about VAT 4956, the Watchtower says:
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
Scholars say that all these positions occurred in 568/567 B.C.E., which would make the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, when he destroyed Jerusalem, 587 B.C.E The positions mentioned on the tablet cover both the years 567 and 568; not just one year or the other. I'd be skeptical of any skeptic who didn't understand this point.
From what I can tell, the misunderstanding must stem from this claim by @Foreigner:
It might look like that's true if you just read a page or two, but if you continue reading the context you will see that the author does NOT find the 19 years accurate for 586BC to 605BC. He thinks both those dates are off by a very specific amount that begins just over 200 years later.

There is nothing wrong with the WT counting back 70 years from 539. I believe that the 70 years starts from 70 years prior to 539, too. And of course, there is a definite connection between the 70 years given to Babylon and the chance for Judea to pay off its sabbaths. So Judea also pays off its sabbaths during the desolation of the 70 years Jehovah gave authority to Babylon. To me the Bible seems pretty clear about ending the 70 years when the kingdom of Persia takes over and not one or two years later, as the Watchtower suggests. That's because of what the 70 years really are, 70 years for Babylon's dominion, not 70 years of total desolation of Judea. However, I am not a stickler for all Biblical numbers having to be exactly counted the way we immediately think we should count them. When the Bible says a man's years are 70 or 80 (lifespan) I don't think that this means no one has ever lived to be 82 or died naturally at age 68, or 75. When the Bible says Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, I don't think that we need be concerned that it was all of Saturday, but perhaps only a few short hours on Friday afternoon and Sunday early morning. So, if the WT has good reason to believe it ran from 607 to 537, I would be very happy with that.
But here is the snag. 539 is not a Biblical date. It's a secular date. The reasons we know that this secular date is accurate are here:
because it's 66 years from Nebuchadnezzar's first year, because it's 9 years before Cambyses' first year, because it's 23 years after Evil Merodach's first year, because it's 21 years after Neriglissar's first year, because it's 17 years after Labasi-Marduk's short reign because it's 17 years after Nabonidus' first year because it's 87 years after Nabopolassar's first year In other words the only reason we know 539 is accurate is because we know the lengths of the kings' reigns from Nabopolassar to Cambyses, and a bit beyond (in both directions). We should never speak of the year 539 unless we are accepting that it is a date 66 years after the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, for example. In other words, if we say that we believe we can use the date 539 for the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon, then we can only say this if we believe that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587.
---------------
Another reason we know that 587 and 539 are accurate is because there are not just one or two, but DOZENS of points throughout the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings where we have astronomical evidence that points to only one particular year. In every case there is no question or contradiction about all of them fitting perfectly with each other. Not all data is still readable, of course, but all that is fits the timeline without contradicting the other forms of evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there are literally tens of thousands of clay tablets that have no particular political or religious purpose that just happen to coincide with exactly the same lengths of each kings' reign as the later "king lists" that were copied and retained in much later years. Also, the clay tablets only match the same number of years of each king's reign that also coincidentally happens to fit all the other evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there is a second thread of information that runs through hundreds of the clay tablets which provides a second witness by giving us the names of another parallel "dynasty" of the generations of the house of Egibi, who were something like the CEO's or bank presidents. They also happen to confirm the exact lengths of all the kings in the same way that coincides with all other forms of evidence.
[This form of cross-checking in enormously helpful, especially when a loan is known to have started in a certain year of one king and one "bank president," and then end in a certain year of the next king. Also if a certain "bank president" is always active for every transaction that happens in the early part of a particular year of a particular king, but the son of that "bank president" is said to be the new "bank president" for the remainder of that king's year and even into the first few years of the next king, we have a whole new way to validate the order of the kings and the lengths of their reigns. It becomes similar to the way, in Egyptian chronology, when the records of special bulls were kept along with their ages and under which king's year they were born, and under which king's year they died.]
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because of a couple of kings' lists that were discovered to be contemporary with almost the entire set of Neo-Babylonian kings. These are not late versions of kings' lists like those that survive through Ptolemy's works -- which also happen to confirm the Neo-Babylonian period of lengths of kings' reigns, with no contradictions to any of the other pieces of evidence.
----------------
By the same token, if we don't believe that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587, then we have no right to speak of the first [accession] year of Cyrus over Babylon as 539. Simply put, using the date 539 means that we accept the same dating system that puts Neb's 19th year in 587. It would be dishonest to speak of 539, if we didn't believe that.
Also, because Jewish and Babylonian years don't start on January 1st and end on December 31st, it's a little more proper to say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year starts in 587 and ends in 586. Also since Nebuchadnezzar became king late in 605, this was only a partial year, or accession year, and his "official" first year was therefore 604. Therefore by that count, 587 started his 18th year official year, but the Bible often uses a method where the accession year is counted and with that method this would be called his 19th year. 
*Note: some of the years and lengths mentioned above are going to be one year off due to avoiding the lengthiness of precise language accounting for the difference in cardinal/ordinal - accession/non-accession.

@Anna -  No. The date 539 BCE is derived from the very same historical sources as 587 BCE.
There is the Babylonian Chronicle that indicates Babylon fell in Nabonidus' 17th year.
How can we pin a BCE date to Nabonidus' 17th year? Babylonian astronomical tablets, that's how - by using the ancient sky clock. The astronomical record on VAT 4956 gives an anchor point for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year being none other than 568-7 BCE. There are other astronomical anchor points too - one of which is dated to Cambyses' 7th year (522-1 BCE). The method is, once we find out how many years kings ruled (evidenced from other historical data), to count forwards or backwards accordingly.
And so, we arrive at 539 BCE for Babylon's conquest and 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar when he destroyed Jerusalem (Jer. 52:29).
 

Photo by Steve Bronstein, an advertising photographer.
https://stevebronstein.com/Portfolio/9/caption
He describes how he designed/produced the shot.
(Psst, it's photographic art - not real.)

Photo by Steve Bronstein, an advertising photographer.
https://stevebronstein.com/Portfolio/9/caption
He describes how he designed/produced the shot.
(Psst, it's photographic art - not real.)

Photo by Steve Bronstein, an advertising photographer.
https://stevebronstein.com/Portfolio/9/caption
He describes how he designed/produced the shot.
(Psst, it's photographic art - not real.)

I can only suggest that you try not to feel provoked whenever someone makes an observation.
Actually, you must have misunderstood, because that's completely false. I made the observation that the author wants to move the date of VAT 4956 by 200 years from the 2nd Edition, not the first edition you are claiming I got it from. Using the link, I noticed that I could not easily find out the exact date the author wished to assign to VAT 4956. Although there was enough information to detect it, it might not have been easy to follow the logic, and it might have looked like just an opinion. Since it was easy to find the exact number spelled out in the first edition, I knew this would make the point easier to explain and follow. 
At any rate, I can't help but see how clearly your misunderstandings have already been answered -- multiple times. So I'm only responding at this point in case of confusion to others.
I wasn't too concerned with the first question that @Foreigner asked @scholar JW. References to VAT 4956 being "wrong by about 200 years" are also there in the first edition, and the author therefore sees it as "the most important astronomical artifact" to overcome (p.7). So it remains a part of the subtext, even for page 35, in that first post. However, I was responding to another question that Foreigner asked as follows . . . .
Foreigner was evidently under the impression that "this wasn't adjusted" not realizing evidently that it was adjusted. 
Not true at all. In fact, I showed exactly how the author's calculation for VAT 4956 was made exactly to fit the theory described and exactly how it fit in to the theory mentioned on page 35.
Yes, these are the standard dates that the author never agrees with on any pages of the book in any edition. And if you are asking, yes, he also thinks that 605-586=19. But that doesn't matter because he thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed in 390 BC. And he also thinks that the Jews remained in Babylon for only 49 years. (But he also says that they were returned after only 40 years in 350 BC, rather than 539/8.)

Ann
Indeed! I had forgotten about ChannelC.  I believe I posted there for  a time and I think it was the  only site that COJ  posted but I cannot recall Young's articles coming up for discussion but I surrender to your recall on these matters.
scholar JW

I'd think an upright stake had more phallic symbolism. (Ezek. 8:17)
 

Discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.