Ann O'Maly

His dates do not agree with the archaeological and historical evidence. He believes Azariah reigned during the 605 - 586 BCE period, that Josiah died in 412 BCE, and he dates Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar to 390 BCE. So no, he does not stick to the biblical and archaeological evidence in their entirety but makes up his own timeline according to his biases and presuppositions.

However, COJ, Doug Mason and Max Hatton do stick to the biblical and archaeological evidence in their entirety. You are entitled to your opinion, though.

Re: quote box below reproducing article from w11, 11/1.
1. The article didn't disclose who the 'researchers' were so readers could check their work for themselves (a peculiar omission given the article's writer(s) had gone to great pains to reference other academic sources).
2. The article's claim that "all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E." is demonstrably false. Do an internet search for more details.
Also see one past discussion from this forum: LINK

Re: quote box below reproducing article from w11, 11/1.
1. The article didn't disclose who the 'researchers' were so readers could check their work for themselves (a peculiar omission given the article's writer(s) had gone to great pains to reference other academic sources).
2. The article's claim that "all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E." is demonstrably false. Do an internet search for more details.
Also see one past discussion from this forum: LINK

This idea that the desolation was only 50 years is not the right way to look at it anyway in my opinion. It comes from the same kind of thinking that the Watchtower used when the researchers realized that the 70 years of desolation of Tyre might have lasted less than 34 years. (That's sometimes 54 years in Watchtower-speak) Or even less than that for the island-city itself.
*** it-2 p. 531 Tyre ***
Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror.—Eze 26:7-12. *** ip-1 chap. 19 pp. 253-254 pars. 21-23 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What will then happen to Tyre? Isaiah continues: “At the end of seventy years it will happen to Tyre as in the song of a prostitute: ‘Take a harp, go around the city, O forgotten prostitute. Do your best at playing on the strings; make your songs many, in order that you may be remembered.’ And it must occur at the end of seventy years that Jehovah will turn his attention to Tyre, and she must return to her hire and commit prostitution with all the kingdoms of the earth upon the surface of the ground.”—Isaiah 23:15b-17. Following the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E., Phoenicia becomes a satrapy of the Medo-Persian Empire. The Persian monarch, Cyrus the Great, is a tolerant ruler. Under this new rulership, Tyre will resume her former activity and try hard to regain recognition as a world commercial center—just as a prostitute who has been forgotten and has lost her clientele seeks to attract new clients by going around the city, playing her harp and singing her songs. Will Tyre succeed? Yes, Jehovah will grant her success. In time, the island-city will become so prosperous that toward the end of the sixth century B.C.E., [520 B.C.E.] the prophet Zechariah will say: “Tyre proceeded to build a rampart for herself, and to pile up silver like dust and gold like the mire of the streets.”—Zechariah 9:3. The 13 years of the "Siege of Tyre" is usually dated from 586–573 BC. In fact, I'm sure you have noticed that the Babylonian Chronicle doesn't mention that Nebuchadnezzar was overtaking Jerusalem in 587/6 only mentioning Nebuchadnezzar at the siege of Jerusalem in 598/7 which was 11 years earlier. This makes sense in light of the most probable time for the preparations for the campaign against Tyre. This is also in accord with the testimony of Scripture which tells us that Nebuchadnezzar didn't show up for the breaking of Jerusalem's wall in the fourth month and burning of the temple in the seventh month.
(2 Kings 25:8-12) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. 10 And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard. 11 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city, the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the population. 12 But the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers. You will notice, too, that if you truly believe the Bible account, that you also cannot claim that the country was left completely desolate, without an inhabitant, at the time when the city and temple were desolated. Nebuzaradan left some of the poorest people to be vinedressers and compulsory laborers.
A much more sensible way to look at the prophecy, which fits all the scriptures is to see that Babylon was given 70 years of ascendancy in order to inflict desolations and deportations and destruction upon Judea and Jerusalem which would finally result in the complete desolation she deserved during that 70 year period. Part of the punishment was the fear that Babylon began to inflict upon them immediately, knowing that one of Babylon's armies under Nebuchadnezzar was already in the area of Hattu-land (which would include Judea) causing destruction and desolation even before he became king in 605 B.C.E. In this sense, of course, the Watchtower is absolutely right that the 70 years of desolation began around 607. Babylon's reputation after 609 B.C.E. was unavoidable and, as said before, even the fear that caused fleeing to Egypt and other places was included as part of the punishment upon Judea. Note:
(Leviticus 26:33-38) 33 And I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe a sword after you; and your land will be made desolate, and your cities will be devastated. 34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies. At that time the land will rest, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days it lies desolate it will rest, because it did not rest during your sabbaths when you were dwelling on it. 36 “‘As for those who survive, I will fill their hearts with despair in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a blowing leaf will cause them to flee, and they will flee like someone running from the sword and fall without anyone pursuing them. 37 They will stumble over one another like those running from a sword, though no one is pursuing them. You will not be able to resist your enemies. 38 You will perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies will consume you.  
Another point that some people think is the key is this idea that Isaiah adds: that 70 years is the "days of a king" which is taken to mean the "days of a kingdom" in the "Isaiah" book. The book correctly points out that this is what Jeremiah meant in Jeremiah 25. This might imply that there was an expression whereby the term "70 years" had a kind of figurative meaning, implying that empires around these parts would rise and fall after just 3 generations for example. This point is made in another scripture that emphasizes that the time period was about Babylon's domination, not the exact length of time of Judea's decline:
(Jeremiah 27:5-8) 5 ‘It is I who made the earth, mankind, and the beasts that are on the surface of the earth by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I have given it to whomever I please. 6 And now I have given all these lands into the hand of my servant King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon; even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 All the nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his own land comes, when many nations and great kings will make him their slave.’ 8 “‘“‘If any nation or kingdom refuses to serve King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon and refuses to put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence,’ declares Jehovah, ‘until I have finished them off by his hand.’ It wasn't literally Nebuchadnezzar's son and grandson that followed him in a physical sense, but in any case, the nations would serve "him" until "his" time also came a couple generations down the line and the "yoke of Babylon" (after 70 years) was broken, even though some nations, like Tyre, may have only come directly under that yoke for 30 to 50 years. Of course, if you claim that Tyre came under that yoke from the start of the siege against it, then you would need to admit that Jerusalem came under that yoke 11 years earlier, too.

Which question was that? Whose earlier claim of 605 to 586? Foreigner's or the author of the book? As you can probably see now, the author of the book was only admitting that these were the standard dates that scholars agree to. The author wanted to move them by about 200 years. This was done for the same purpose I mentioned earlier when I said that many people look for a scheme wherein Adam was 6000 years ago, Abraham was 4000 years ago, David was 3000 years ago, and Jesus was 2000 years ago, with a Millennium starting before the 7000 years of a "Great Week" is completed. In addition, some people want Nebuchadnezzar to be 200 years later, so that with Nebuchadnezzar's taking of Jehoiachin as the starting point, they can make the "70 weeks" of years work out from that point. Some pick a date so that they can start it with Cyrus' Edict, which seems a better fit for Daniel's words:
(Daniel 9:25) You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·si?ah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks.. . ." All this is related to what the author states on page 39 attached at the end of this post.
If you'll notice, all these attempts to denigrate the evidence are exactly what the Watchtower (and Furuli, etc) have attempted to do with the same evidence because of an interpretation of the 70 years. In Thompson's case it was about an interpretation of the 70 weeks of years.
In both cases, they seem to have forgotten that even without VAT4956, the evidence is still overwhelming that VAT4956 would put Nebuchadnezzar's19th year at 587/6.
Not at all. There is no dilemma for either secular chronology or Bible chronology. They match up perfectly well. There is so much evidence for this particular time period from so many different angles that you can use VAT4956 and get the answer, or skip VAT4956 and get the same answer. There never was a dilemma.
page 39 from Darren Thompson's book:
 
 

@Foreigner - I was commenting on the book you quoted. The author wants to make radical changes to biblical chronology which means the established, historically-verified 7th-6th century dating for the last Judahite kings and the neo-Babylonian empire goes bye-bye. It's a poor resource to cite.

.
I'm glad you have a sense of humour. If you are interested in my opinion about what it really means to defend something, you could start a new thread.  I'd like to keep this thread a little more on the topic of the chronology behind 607.
Perhaps. Although I see nothing wrong with being anxious about being right, when it's the same as being anxious for the truth. Even zealousness is a good thing as long as it is for accurate knowledge and truth. 
(Romans 10:2) . . .For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. On this issue of Rodger Young being the first scholar to introduce Methodology as a term of nomenclature in Chronology, I'll withhold judgment, especially after seeing that Google Books returns thousands of references throughout the 20th century discussing the terms together. I believe his methodology is described exactly as we would hope that all scholars would have considered. It's a matter of being thorough and considering all possibilities before selecting the best options. I believe that Luke himself refers to such a methodology:
(Luke 1:1-4) 1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·oph?i·lus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally. Decision tables happen to be a shorthand way of making sure that all those options were considered without having to spell them all out. You may have noticed that I used the equivalent of decision tables in a couple of previous discussions here. I assume it's a habit picked up in Computer Science classes, where it is a necessary tool for tracing the logic of a conclusion, or backtracking combinatorial algorithms, or quality assurance testing to make sure no possible path is missed. But these are also taught in LSAT (Law School Admissions Tests) as a way of making sure that potential students can "solve" for all logical permutations in a legal situation.
We can easily believe that many scholars have taken shortcuts before drawing their conclusions, and have seen plenty of evidence of this. But it's really a good reminder to always consider all possibilities in the most accurate detail possible before drawing conclusions. As of today, I have now read several of Rodger Young's articles, and have appreciated his attempts at accuracy. 
How could he support 607? It's just made-up pseudo-archaeology with no solid basis. It pretends you can speak about 539 (the 67th year after the start of Nebuchadnezzar reign) without accepting that 587/6 was the19th year after the start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, or vice versa.
I don't think you should underestimate this audience, especially if you think it's a reason to shortchange them on facts. A few will believe anything that fits what they've already accepted in the past, but that's not always going to be your typical Witness who finds reasons to visit topics like this one.
You are completely wrong here. I also find that his study on on the fall of Samaria, which the WT dates to 740 and which he and others date to the first half of 723n is another study that confirms exactly what I said. And it's also an indictment of the sloppy methodology of the WTS. Not that he ever mentions the WTS, of course. He may not even be aware of the theory the WTS promotes, but everything he presents about his methodology shows the WT theory to be even more ridiculous after the kind of scrutiny he recommends. I'm definitely going to make sure that the WTS is aware of his work in the next few days. On the inclusion of point #7, I wanted to include it already but thought of space considerations. Here it is, and it is an excellent explanation of where the WTS has gone wrong for so many years:
The use of Decision Tables reveals that previous studies have overlooked many possibilities that were entirely consistent with the ideas of the author of the study, but which were not explored simply because they were never thought of. This failure to explore all the possibilities has been a major problem in the studies of OT chronology, and one that has led to significant confusion in the chronologies produced. It is to be hoped that future studies will not declare that some new solution is to be preferred, or the text needs to be emended, until it is demonstrated that there are no other sets of hypotheses that better explain the data. Ignoring this practice will reduce the credibility of the study. The WTS has clearly lacked methodology, and has failed to even indicate an attempt to support the possibilities indicated by all the scriptures, much less even 10% of the secular evidence that the WTS half-relies on as absolutely true, and half-relies on as absolutely false. It would show up just how pretentious the WTS has been in selectively finding weaknesses that they don't admit are the same weaknesses for the secular dates that are relied upon.
And the first paragraph on page 21 sets out exactly what @Ann O'Maly has been saying: that it's not a matter of scholars divided over 586 and 587 due to any secular Babylonian records, but to the way in which they interpret the difference between the accession and non-accession years in the Bible record. You appeared to promote the idea that scholars should be ashamed of this "confusion" and kept implying that it was not due to the Bible's inconsistent methods of dating. Rodger Young points out this inconsistency in the Bible accounts several times. It even shows up in his other treatises. For example, on the dating of the destruction of Samaria. I'll quote it because it provides Young's own summary of a portion of the method he used in the Jerusalem paper:
In Young, “Jerusalem,” it was shown that the years for Zedekiah are given by the non-accession method in both 2 Kings and Jeremiah. This was not recognized earlier because the switch to non-accession counting came right at the end of the Judean kingdom and no simple clues are given to indicate that the change was taking place. By applying a proper methodology that first asks how Jeremiah and 2 Kings 25 treat the reign of Zedekiah, we can determine that the authors used non-accession reckoning, but this still does not provide the reason for the change in the method of counting. The reason, indeed, can be as arbitrary as the whim of the reigning king. Zedekiah could have said, “This is the way we’re going to count my years. Don’t ask any more questions.” Although we do not know why the change took place, if we refused to consider anything but accession years for Zedekiah we would be guilty of a Factor One error (forcing our presuppositions on the data). One scholar who explored non-accession counting for Zedekiah was Alberto Green. . . Green was correct in saying that non-accession reckoning is not used for Jehoiakim in 2 Kings, but both Jeremiah and 2 Kings use non-accession reckoning for Zedekiah. It is unfortunate that Green missed this, because his article exhibits one of the best examples of attempting to examine all the possibilities before settling on a solution to a chronological problem. Young therefore relies on knowledge of the Bible's inconsistency. And the WTS, of course, admits this same inconsistency as I pointed out already from the "Insight" book. But his best point is the more general counsel to examime all possibilities and not force presuppositions on the data, as the WTS has proven itself guilty of doing by not considering 90% of the data, and pretending that a denigration of 10% will suffice in denigrating the rest. (But forgetting to mention that the WTS also relies completely on the data they denigrate.) The shame is highlighted if a decision table would be shown.
I really couldn't care less what Carl Jonsson used as a methodology. It's pretty easy to do this yourself anyway with all the evidence out their on display for anyone to scrutinize. The fact that Carl Jonsson happens to get the same 587 answer that Rodger Young got might be impressive to others, especially if they are convinced that he was able to do this even without a methodology. So I guess that Rodger Young was able to confirm Jonsson's conclusion of 587. I have to say that I'm not fully convinced that Carl Jonsson and Rodger Young are necessarily correct, only because it's not clear that Zedekiah is the only king (or specific passages are the only places) for which the non-accession reckoning was used over the accession year reckoning. I believe I could still make a reasonable case for 586, but a difference of one year does not matter to me. For me, this is not part of a 1914 calculation anyway, nor would it be for you, if you chose between 587 and 586 as the correct year. Even if it was proven to be 587 and not 586, I'm pretty sure you'd still go for 607, at least until a few seconds after the WTS changes the doctrine on us again.
I'm glad you did. I still can't fathom any other way anyone could have drawn a solid conclusion. 
 

JW Insider
I believed I fared very well on the JWD forum over a period of many years but if you do not share my opinion then that is fine because I am not interested in convincing anyone about WT chronology just simply to defend it and in that regard, I have been successful. Don't you think?
You misread things perhaps due to your anxiety to be right and overzealous in trying to discredit WT Chronology. Rodger Young was the first scholar to introduce Methodology as a  term of nomenclature in Chronology published in the scholarly literature. However, the said 'scholar' first applied the term to Chronology in his defence of WT Chronology published on the JWD forum. Rodger Young does not support 607 but 587 as a revision to Thielean Chronology. What you fail to mention is Young's use Of Decision Tables or Analysis  in order to solve the problems associated with 587 and 586. Try explaining that to this audience. Must keep things simple!!!
You talk utter nonsense when you seek to superimpose WT  Chronology onto Youg's conclusion 6. on p. 38 in his 2004 study. What he is talking about here concerns a summary of his findings regarding the calendrical issues surrounding the resolution of the 586/7 BCE dilemma and has absolutely nothing to do with our Chronology and 607 BCE. Honesty would compel you to post conclusion 7 on p.38 and also the very first paragraph on p.21 which sets out the purpose and conclusion of his study.. You should be ashamed of yourself.
In fact one of the reasons why  I was the first scholar to introduce the term 'methodology' into the subject of Chronology long prior to 2004 was the fact that Carl Jonsson in his initial treatise stumbled over the WTS use of 539 BCE and not then using secular data to establish their OT chronology. Prior to 2000, I was in the process of doing a thesis for my Honours Degree and one of the compulsory Units was on Methodology so at that time I knew of its importance in academic research so I realized that this was the solution to Jonsson's problem along with many other inquirers so I adopted the formula that Chronology was about Methodology and Interpretation as the two essentials tools for the constructing a scheme of Chronology.. So, do not come with the nonsense about 539 BCE!!
scholar JW
 

Even if 607 had been the correct date for the destruction of Jerusalem (all the evidence says otherwise) and even if there was supposed to be a 2,520 year period counting from that point (the Bible never mentions that there should be one), we still have another interesting issue to look at:
The Bible evidently doesn't consider the final destruction of Jerusalem, when Zedekiah was removed from the throne at Jerusalem, to be the most important chronological event from which to start counting time. The event that starts a new era of time in Matthew's chronology is "the deportation to Babylon," 11 years earlier.
(Matthew 1:11-17) 11 Jo·siʹah became father to Jec·o·niʹah and to his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 12 After the deportation to Babylon, Jec·o·niʹah became father to She·alʹti·el;. . .  Matʹthan became father to Jacob; 16 Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. 17 All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations. "Jeconiah and his brothers" included, of course, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah.
(2 Kings 23:30) . . .Then the people of the land took Jo·siʹah’s son Je·hoʹa·haz and anointed him and made him king in place of his father.
(Jeremiah 1:3) 3 It came also in the days of Je·hoiʹa·kim the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until the completion of the 11th year of Zed·e·kiʹah the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month.
In fact, the era beginning from the "deportation to Babylon" at the time of Jeconiah and his brothers was, indeed, a period from which a new reckoning of time was counted. Note the examples from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, that indicate that this era was now the official era by which to synchronize the Jewish chrononolgy with that of the nations around them -- even 26 years after the Temple was destroyed:
(Jeremiah 52:31) 31 Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah and brought him out of prison. (Ezekiel 1:2, 3) On the fifth day of the month—that is, in the fifth year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin— 3 the word of Jehovah came to Ezekiel . . .
(Ezekiel 8:1) And in the sixth year, in the sixth month, on the fifth day of the month, when I was sitting in my house and the elders of Judah were sitting before me, the hand of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah took hold of me there.
(Ezekiel 20:1) Now in the seventh year, in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, some of the elders of Israel came and sat down before me to inquire of Jehovah.
(Ezekiel 24:1, 2) The word of Jehovah again came to me in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, saying: 2 “Son of man, record this date, this very day. The king of Babylon has begun his attack against Jerusalem on this very day.
(Ezekiel 26:1, 2) In the 11th year, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gateway of the peoples has been broken! Everything will come my way, and I will become rich now that she is devastated’;
(Ezekiel 29:1, 2) In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the 12th day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, turn your face toward Pharʹaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt.
(Ezekiel 29:17, 18) Now in the 27th year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 18 “Son of man, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon made his army labor greatly against Tyre.. . .
(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!”
(Ezekiel 40:1) In the 25th year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the 14th year after the city had fallen, on that very day the hand of Jehovah was upon me, and he took me to the city.
 @Foreigner suggests that some of the literature on the subject is often unclear, such that the entire period from 597 to 587 is sometimes ambiguous when referring to the destructive events upon Jerusalem. The last reference above in Ezekiel 40 shows that the final destruction of Jerusalem did also become a point of reference, but it was not the one that continues to get the most attention in the scriptures.

There are a few other related subjects to the 607 date that we should not ignore. One is that the synchronisms  with Egyptian chronology create no conflict when tied to Assyrian and Babylonian chronology and true, sensible "Bible chronology." Yet when tied to the changes that the Watchtower Society has made to so-called "Bible chronology" in order for 1914 to work, not surprisingly, the synchronisms are all out of joint again. 
Here's a quick example:
(2 Kings 23:31-24:1) . . .Je·hoʹa·haz was 23 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem.. . .  33 Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh imprisoned him at Ribʹlah in the land of Haʹmath, to keep him from reigning in Jerusalem, and then imposed on the land a fine of 100 silver talents and a gold talent. 34 Furthermore, Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh made Jo·siʹah’s son E·liʹa·kim king in place of his father Jo·siʹah and changed his name to Je·hoiʹa·kim; but he took Je·hoʹa·haz and brought him to Egypt, where he eventually died. 35 Je·hoiʹa·kim gave the silver and the gold to Pharʹaoh, but he had to tax the land to give the silver that Pharʹaoh demanded. He exacted an assessed amount of silver and gold from each of the people of the land to give to Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh. 36 Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ze·biʹdah the daughter of Pe·daiʹah from Ruʹmah. 37 He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his forefathers had done. 24 In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. . . . Pharaoh Nechoh can only be Pharaoh Necho II who reigned from 610 to 595 BC between the reigns of Necho I (672-664) Psamtik I (664-610) and Psamtik II (595-589) all from Egypt's 26th dynasty. (Psamtik is Psammetichus, below)
The work "The Present State of Egyptian Chronology" by William A Ward says the following, related to the chronology of the 26th dynasty:
The chronology of the New Kingdom has the advantage of much more Egyptian documentation, clear historical synchronisms with Western Asia, and it can be attached almost directly to the better established absolute chronology of the first millennium B.C.E. . . . For the New Kingdom, chronologists usually begin with the more verifiable dates of the late period. Psammetichus I, founder of the 26th Dy nasty, began his reign in 664 B.C.E.; Taharqa, last ruler of the 25th Dynasty, ruled from 690 to 664 B.C.E.; . . . These dates are well nigh universally accepted and can all be ascertained by synchronisms with Assyrian kings, . . . So, if it is correct that Egyptian chronology syncs with Assyrian/Neo-Babylonian chronology, then Pharoah Necho ruled from 610 to 595. We know from the Bible that he made Jehoiakim the king, who ruled for 11 years in Jerusalem, then Jehoiakim must have ruled starting in 599. (This was at least 10 years before the final destruction of Jerusalem. So we already know that 607 is wrong by almost 20 years.)
Then we know that Jehoiachin reigned next for 3 months before the Nebuchadnezzar desolated the city in the 8th year of his reign:
(2 Kings 24:8-12) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ne·hushʹta the daughter of El·naʹthan of Jerusalem. 9 He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his father had done. 10 During that time the servants of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city came under siege. 11 King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to the city while his servants were laying siege to it. 12 King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign. So from the reference to Necho we can see that the "deportation to Babylon" (Matthew 1:11) took place between 599 (599 at the earliest and 584 at the latest). If Nebuchadnezzar's first year was 605 BCE, then by the reckoning of years in 2 Kings, his 8th year would be about 597. 597 is a perfect fit for the reign of Necho II who ruled from 610 to 595. It's also a perfect fit to the Babylonian Chronicles which mention it. (Keep in mind that this is the first major capture of Jerusalem about 11 years prior to it's complete burning and destruction in 587/6.) Whether it was 597 or 596 is also discussed in the following Wikipedia reference:
--------[remainder of post is the reference from Wikipedia article: "Siege of Jerusalem"] -------
Nebuchadnezzar soon dealt with these rebellions. According to the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle,[3] he laid siege to Jerusalem, which eventually fell on 2 Adar (March 16) 597 BC. The Chronicle states:
. . .  Nebuchadnezzar installed Jeconiah's uncle, Zedekiah as puppet-king of Judah, and Jeconiah was compelled to remain in Babylon.[10] The start of Zedekiah's reign has been variously dated within a few weeks before,[11] or after[12][13] the start of Nisan 597 BC.
The Babylonian Chronicles, which were published by Donald Wiseman in 1956, establish that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BC.[14] Before Wiseman's publication, E. R. Thiele had determined from the biblical texts that Nebuchadnezzar's initial capture of Jerusalem occurred in the spring of 597 BC,[15] but other scholars, including William F. Albright, more frequently dated the event to 598 BC.[16]
------------- end of quote from Wikipedia --------------

I would completely agree. The only reason that the WTS ever required the dates 606 and 536, was so that the Nebuchadnezzar's "seven times" of insanity could reach 1914. Those dates were later adjusted to 606+1 year, and 536+3years-2years so that 1914 could still be reached. There has never been any evidence for 606 or 607, so it had to be done through "pseudo-archaeology," pretending that all the evidence for 539 (which we liked) could be used separately from the rest of the evidence that 539 was based upon (which we didn't like).

You have created an almost comical juxtaposition when you mention the idea that "WT scholars have not been troubled" along with the methodology of Rodger Young. The following is from the same source quoted above, p.38 of Young's article where he gives an almost perfect description of the problematic methodology of the Watchtower's hypothesis about 607.
(6) None of these conclusions was arrived at by forcing presuppositions on the data found in the scriptural text received from the Masoretes, except perhaps the presupposition that when the data conflicted with one of our hypotheses, then any reasonable set of hypotheses which did not conflict with the data was to be preferred over the set which produced conflict. This approach may be contrasted with an approach which says that when a favorite set of hypotheses conflicts with the data, the data will be declared in error and no further effort will be expended to see if another set of hypotheses offers a better explanation. He here shows how his methodology contrasts with the flawed and embarrassing "methodology" of the WTS which simply declares that all the data must be declared to be in error if it doesn't fit 607. More correctly, all the data must be declared to be in error if it does not fit 1914, because the WTS has even changed the date of the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 to 607 when they discovered that it didn't help them reach 1914 correctly. They changed the supposed "absolute" date for the first year of Cyrus from 536 to 538. Therefore, for the Watchtower, the only real "absolute date" is 1914, and all data must be declared in error if it conflicts with 1914.

This is quite a surprising claim. I have looked through your comments on JWD and see that you have fared no better there than you have here. Also, what do you mean by saying that the studies of Rodger Young's "followed from observations" made by you? Not only does he not mention you, he completely disagrees with you about the date for Jerusalem's destruction. (For what it's worth, it turns out he agrees with me and thousands of others who have looked into the evidence.)
The remainder of this post is from the conclusion from his article "When Did Jerusalem Fall" (published 2004) as found here http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf
vi. conclusion
This study has examined all texts in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings that bear on the question, “When did Jerusalem fall?” Many side issues needed to be addressed to answer the question satisfactorily. A technique called Decision Analysis was used to ensure that all combinations of hypotheses were considered and that any hidden assumptions were brought out into the open. The analysis allowed us to rule out many presuppositions that were accepted in former studies and to replace them with presuppositions that do not contradict the data (the received text). The conclusions from the analysis are as follows.
(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year.
(2) Ezekiel consistently dated events from the time that Jehoiachin was taken captive in early 597 bc. He used Tishri years in all his reckoning.
(3) Similarly, 2 Kings 24–25 consistently used Tishri years and non-accession reckoning for Judean kings. For Nebuchadnezzar, non-accession years, starting in Nisan, were used.
(4) In the writings of Jeremiah (which excludes the fifty-second chapter), Jeremiah consistently used Tishri years for Judah, as did Ezekiel and the source for the last chapters of 2 Kings. This is in harmony with the usage of Judah throughout the monarchic period, in contrast to Thiele’s assumption that Jeremiah and Ezekiel used Nisan reckoning for Judah. Jeremiah used non-accession years for the kings of Judah and for Nebuchadnezzar. There is not enough information to determine if he started the years for Nebuchadnezzar in Tishri or Nisan; both assumptions fit the data.
 

Hi Ann
I am proud of the Bible's testimony, the difference between the two dates is based on the supposedly conflicting dates for Neb's regnal years in connection with the Fall of Jerusalem. WT scholars have not been troubled by this supposed anomaly because we are able to assign a precise date for the event whereas most if not all other scholars are perplexed. The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young  which followed from observations made by Neil  Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum.
scholar JW

Correct. I’m basing myself on the calendar year as ascribed by the ancients. to 610/609 BCE
Rightfully so. There were other sources other than Max Hatton that could have contributed to sound research.
SAOC 24. Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein 1942
CHRONICLES OF CHALDAEAN KINGS D.J. Wiseman 1956
For the works of Edwin R. Thiele, you would certainly consider Leslie McFall, which also gave an opinion on the BOOK: Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75
Therefore, any references to a subject, even if it was difficult to acquire? It could have been obtained.

This statement ...
... is considerably different to ...
So we agree now that Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho appointed Jehoiakim in Jehoahaz's stead (2 Kings 23:30-35).
Josiah died in 609 BCE. Regarding Jehoahaz's and Jehoiakim's succession, you said:
               "There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC."
Therefore, you must be arguing that Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim ascended the throne before their father died. Or do you have a different scenario?
On what basis do you 'not doubt' that R. Franz and Jonsson were directly influenced by Hatton?

This statement ...
... is considerably different to ...
So we agree now that Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho appointed Jehoiakim in Jehoahaz's stead (2 Kings 23:30-35).
Josiah died in 609 BCE. Regarding Jehoahaz's and Jehoiakim's succession, you said:
               "There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC."
Therefore, you must be arguing that Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim ascended the throne before their father died. Or do you have a different scenario?
On what basis do you 'not doubt' that R. Franz and Jonsson were directly influenced by Hatton?

Anne
I agree with you. There is no evidence that Max Hatton had any influence on either Raymond Franz' research or that of Carl Jonsson for both carried out their own independent research.
scholar JW

That's not what you initially said, contributing to the confusion.
You mean, BEFORE Josiah died?
Raymond Franz said that while he was researching the Aid book, he couldn't find evidence for 607 BCE being the destruction of Jerusalem so worked on undermining the evidence for 587/6 BCE instead. Jonsson did his own independent research and submitted it to Watchtower HQ. It was then that R. Franz became aware of just how bogus the WT chronology for the NB era was.
 

That's not what you initially said, contributing to the confusion.
You mean, BEFORE Josiah died?
Raymond Franz said that while he was researching the Aid book, he couldn't find evidence for 607 BCE being the destruction of Jerusalem so worked on undermining the evidence for 587/6 BCE instead. Jonsson did his own independent research and submitted it to Watchtower HQ. It was then that R. Franz became aware of just how bogus the WT chronology for the NB era was.
 

No need to. Jeremiah explained why the 70 years need not be related to the destruction of Jerusalem. It was pretty obvious, no doubt, that nations served Babylon over a period of Babylon's 70 years of domination. (Can I assume you might still get to that question I asked you about the explanation of Jeremiah 25 in the Isaiah book?)
Also, of course, Thiele takes Zedekiah's 11th year (and 4th month) as part of a Nisan-to-Nisan year which also influences his acceptance of 586 as the destruction of Jerusalem. I think Thiele is still an excellent resource for this time period. He is another good resource to show why 607 has no evidence behind it for Jerusalem's destruction.

No, that's not true, and that's the problem. The reader is NOT advised. That's a form of academic dishonesty.
Here is one of literally HUNDREDS of examples of this in our literature:
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) You might know better, of course, but don't you think that some of the brothers will read this line in the "Insight" book under "Nebuchadnezzar" and get the impression that a well-researched resource about Babylonian texts indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 588 B.C.E.?
It's amazing (and shameful) that our publications still do this repeatedly. The referenced book by Pritchard is 100% aware that all the evidence consistently points to 568 for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore 587/6 for his 19th year (not 607). There is only one reason that the Watchtower publications sneaks 588 in there without any explanation about how the book they referenced actually rejects this date. It's because 588 is the date that would allow 607 to work which would allow 1914 to work. We should not have to depend on dishonesty and slick tricks like this. If the evidence stood on its own, we would be happy to point to the evidence, instead of trying to denigrate the evidence, and then "dishonestly" forget to tell the readers that it's this same denigrated evidence that we rely on for 607.

Anna
The reason why we accept 539 BCE and not 587 Bce even though both dates are derived from similar secular sources but reflect diifferent methodologies in calculating these. The answer is Methodology for WT scholars make a determination based upon the textual, historical, biblical and astronomical sources. All of these things must come together in order for a measure of confidence be assured. It is only very recent times from 2000 that METHODOLOGY has become part of the Chronologist's toolkit in order to solve some of the vexing issues of OT chronology such as the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in either 586 or 587 BCE We have course have long solved this problem by fixing the precise date of 607 BCE because of the 70 years.
scholar JW

I will be honest in a debate whether any other party in a debate is honest or not. That is what I meant when I said it is not a two-way street, at least for me. Debates often end up highlighting the academic dishonesty or false foundations of another person's theory. Academic dishonesty can often be the result of giving too much weight to a certain interpretation and then using logical fallacies to bolster the false claims. So academic dishonesty is not always a "personal" dishonesty, but can come about through sloppiness in research, misuse of evidence, being fooled by someone else's mistakes, etc.
Thanks for admitting that.
This is pretty much true. A lot of people make claims that turn out to be untrue, even if they make perfect sense to a lot of people. I have heard people who believe the chronology of the "Great Week" mentioned below (from http://prophecycorner.theforeverfamily.com/chron.html )
Since it is thought that 6,000 years would go by before the sabbatical millennial Day of the Lord begins, some people have thought that the 6,000th year since Adam's creation would be about 2,000 A.D. I have heard it said that from Adam to Abraham was 2,000 years and from Abraham to Christ was 2,000 years. Like the "Oslo" schema, it's more of a "scheme" than a chronology, but some will fight for it as if it were the only true Bible chronology, and anything different is just a secular falsehood. In the same way, some will also fight to make Cyrus' Edict begin around 460 B.C.E. so that they can make the 70 weeks of years match with their supposedly more "obvious" interpretation of Daniel. There are a lot of claims about Bible chronology, just like several of the old Watchtower claims, that have necessarily been abandoned by now for obvious reasons.
That book contains many claims that are shamefully wrong. Note this one on the page you quoted:
It is because of making the mistake of dating the beginning of the seventy-year period for the desolation of Jerusalem and the land of Judah after King Jehoiakim reigned at Jerusalem but three years that the chronologers in Christendom throw their time schedule of history at least nineteen years out of order, shortening up the stream of time by that many years. They do this because of trying to harmonize the Bible records with the astronomical Canon of Claudius Ptolemy, an Alexandrian or Egyptian astronomer of the second century after Christ, but whose system of astronomy has long since been exploded. In this we do not go along with such chronologers. For a time, the WTS had relied on the king list matching Claudius Ptolemy's to get 539. People noticed the mistake right away. In fact, one letter came in to the Watch Tower the year before the book came out. They should have known better than to print this nonsense.
For example, Max Hatton wrote the Watch Tower Society on June 10, 1962. This letter also contained information about an even earlier letter sent to the Watch Tower Society on July 9, 1959. The 1962 letter says in part:
To date our arguments have been largely concerned with the 70 years mentioned by Jeremiah. I am confident that with the aid of the Societies [sic] publications and some private research I have and will have no real difficulties with this portion of the discussion. It seems that the next item for discussion will inevitably be whether the period of 70 years literal desolation can be accommodated by a Chronological arrangement for the period. As far as I have been able to ascertain the basis for the Chronology, popularly accepted, for the years 747 B.C., to the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. and further on, is the Canon of Ptolemy. It therefore seems obvious that one cannot accept the record of the 70 year desolation and at the same time accept the Canon as being an accurate record. In rejecting the Canon completely, a problem seems to arise, because, as far as I am aware, the date for the destruction of Babylon in 539 B.C. per medium of the Chronological arrangement for which Ptolemy's Canon is the basis. . . . I would greatly appreciate your advice then, whether 539 B.C. can be accurately calculated by some other means entirely independent of the Canon, such as a continuous list of kings with their Accession years calculated by the length of their reign, based on some other evidence. (Either Bible or Secular.) I fully appreciate the advice in the Watchtower of 1st December, 1946 that an eclipse of the moon is not sufficient data by which to locate the year of a certain event, however the "Secretary of the Australian Institute of Archaeology" has advised me that "Ptolemy's Canon is based on a much wider range of astronomical data, the details of which are recorded in his Almagest. It is necessary to correlate the details he gives in his canon with dates he has calculated in other works. The sum result of this is that his canon appears to be accurate within all reasonable limits."  . . . Could I be advised please in what respects the Society considers the Canon to be in error and also reasonable grounds to substantiate such a claim? That is only a small part of the letter, without the original paragraph breaks from the letter. The Watchtower wrote back to Brother Hatton on June 28, 1962. That letter gave some of the best evidence ever that the Society simply did not understand the claims they were making or that, less likely one hopes, they were willing to be very dishonest. Brother Hatton's next response naturally contained more questions, and even more research, and the Society's next letter, told him that they didn't have time to stop for such a research project with the current preparation for the 1963 "Everlasting Good News" assembly coming out (at which the Babylon book would be released). The following exchange of letters shows that the Society was now on the defensive with nowhere to turn. The Babylon book only made the matters worse because the Society was obviously "digging in its heels" on things they had no right to claim. They asked him to give less attention to chronology. The Society told him that if he didn't agree he could still point persons to the place in the Society's publications where such explanations were given, even if he had mental reservations. By July 1965, the Society had disfellowshipped both Brother Hatton and his wife for apostasy. His wife had possibly never said anything but it was suspected that she supported her husband.