Ann O'Maly

@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).
 

You're referring to Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim? Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho hauled off Jehoahaz to Egypt and appointed Jehoiakim in Jehoahaz's stead (2 Kings 23:30-35).
Your chart is confusing. Honestly, the plentiful information supports only one theory, and the data on VAT 4956 belongs only to 568/7 BCE.

Thank you @JW Insider @Ann O'Maly and @scholar JW. I am processing all the information, and made lots of notes. Just haven't had time to put it all together yet.
I have one question in the meantime, why is it that WT has no trouble accepting the 539 date but will not accept the 587 date? Besides the obvious reason, are both dates based on completely different historical sources? Pardon the ignorance, I just haven't got that far in my research yet.
 

In fact, both dates conform to the exact same set of sources. They are both part of the same NB chronology which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence from all the archaeological and astronomical sources. You could use 8 sources and come up with both 539 and 587 as correct, and you use only four of those sources and still come up with both dates as correct. You could also dismiss those 4 you just used, and use the other 4 and still see that both dates are correct. You simply cannot accept the data for 539 without also accepting the data for 587.

Ah ha. That explains the subsequent bout of verbal ... um ... outpourings.
Yes, it is impressive ... but for all the wrong reasons.
 

I  found  that  by  google :
http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/features/music/richard-clayderman

Wonderful  music,  a  shy  pianist  and   human....
 ? ? ? ?.? ? ? ?.? ? ? ? ? ?.? ?. ? ? ? ?.? ? ? ?
Music legend Richard Clayderman leads a charmed life. The 70 million-selling man they call ‘the Prince of Romance’ has a mansion’s worth of pianos and a top drawer full of fan mail. ‘I have received many letters with a link to sexuality,’ smiles the ivory-tinkler. ‘With your permission, I’ll keep them hidden. Let’s keep the mystery on this!’
Clayderman is chatting to CultureNorthernIreland ahead of a show at the Belfast Waterfront on April 16 (2010). It is the balladeer’s third visit to the venue. ‘It is my pleasure to be back again in this beautiful hall,’ he says. An eight-piece string section from Belfast will join him on the night. ‘I have been certified that they are of the highest quality,’ Clayderman says. ‘Sometimes, I’m stressed to work with musicians of a not-too-high quality, but in Ireland I know that the level is extremely high.’
The 56-year-old Frenchman has recorded more than 1,200 melodies across some 150 albums in a 34-year career. Yet, he is happy to look beyond his back catalogue for the set list. ‘Among the pieces of music I will perform in Belfast are two which were originally performed by the Corrs,’ he reveals. ‘I am very fond of the Corrs, and I have adapted these two very Irish compositions to my piano.’ The evening will also feature original work, movie themes and a medley of Stevie Wonder hits. ‘I’m a fan of his way to play the keyboards,’ coos Clayderman.
After listing the musical instruments cluttering his Normandy home – a grand piano here, an electric keyboard there – Clayderman swells with pride as he discusses the impact of his most popular recording, 1976’s ‘Ballade pour Adeline’. ‘I assume that thousands of women aged today less than 35 years old have been named “Adeline” because of the song,’ he purrs. ‘I have received many letters from married couples who have named their little girl “Adeline” because of making love while listening to it.’ This writer’s girlfriend and her mother are both called Adeline, but they were named after a nun. I don’t tell Clayderman. It might burst his bubble.
‘To be romantic is to be concerned with the beauty of the sky, of the sea and of nature,’ he continues. ‘It is to feel love while being surrounded by beauty. I am trying to transmit through the piano all my feelings.’
He might be a dreamer and an eternal romantic, but one thing Clayderman isnÂ’t is an evangelist.
An ongoing misconception is that the musician is a Jehovah’s Witness. ‘I have had many letters requesting me to join a group of other Witnesses on a specific date,’ the pianist groans. ‘I have also received letters advising me to immediately leave the European territories as they are damned and malefic for me.’
Understandably, then, Clayderman guards his privacy, preferring the company of his family to the celebrity circuit. ‘I am rather calm, shy and reserved,’ he says. ‘I don’t like going out to discos, clubs or bars. I need to be in a quiet environment to reload my batteries and get some energy in order to use it on my piano. I don’t speak loud and rarely get irritated. I keep everything inside.’
Clayderman, whose father was a piano teacher, began learning to play at a young age. ‘I was born with music around me,’ he says. ‘There was not one day without music at home. I went to the keyboard quite naturally when I was three or four. I can truly say that music has always been part of my life.’ At 12, he was enrolled in the Paris Conservatoire of Music, where he won acclaim in his teenage years.
Following stints as a bank clerk and as an accompanist to contemporary French artists, such as Johnny Hallyday and Michel Sardou, Clayderman – then still known by his birth name of Philippe Pagès – met producers Olivier Toussaint and Paul de Senneville. De Senneville had composed a ballad in tribute to his new daughter, Adeline, and 23-year-old Pagès was recruited to perform it.
Clayderman earned his famous nickname in 1984, when he appeared at a charity concert in New York City hosted by the then First Lady of the United States, Nancy Reagan. Says Clayderman: ‘After the concert, she thanked me, and said, “You know, Richard, you’re really a prince of romance.” She meant that my style of music is romantic – soft, evoking love, emotions, feelings…’
Clayderman ponders the upcoming Belfast gig. He describes his fan base as ‘very eclectic’, yet still worries about the reaction from the audience. ‘I would not like to perform for people who would not like what I do,’ frets the maestro. ‘That would be hateful for me and for them.’
So  far  I  understand,  he  was / is  NOT a  Jehovah's  Witness

You were claiming that our (WTS) theory was impossible when you tried to add another 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian timeline at a point during Nebuchadnezzar's reign. You suggested Zedekiah's 11th year. You create a contradiction for yourself precisely because the Bible synchronizes the reigns of the last kings of Judah in a way that fits Ptolemy's Canon, and the Babylonian Chronicles and the combined evidence from thousands of clay tablets, along with the astronomical diaries.
Actually it is your problem if you are the one interpreting an idea in a way that contradicts all the evidence. Especially since you already admitted that many lines of evidence and thousands of tablets already represent the NB chronology. It's the same as if you wanted to make World War 1 last for parts of 8 years instead of parts of 5 years. If you say that there are three years of history about WW1 missing, then you would have to be the one to figure out where these new years should be inserted.
There is nothing for me to solve here. I see that all the years are already accounted for, and that they already fit the Bible evidence very well. I am happy that the Bible account is corroborated by the historical accounts and evidence from archaeology.
I never mentioned Jehoiakim. I only referred to Jehoiachin. (Also called Jeconiah) It's easy to confuse them.
I looked up several of your past discussions here and elsewhere. I have seen from these past discussions that you typically don't try to solve any of the chronological problems related to this matter. I have noticed a common pattern of trying to imply that it is the other person who has the problem to solve. You even do that in this very post I am responding to. Apparently, you also have made use of a tactic of abandoning a problem when it is clear that you have failed to address it, and then disappearing and coming back at some later point and claiming that you previously solved the problem or "won the argument" that you had abandoned. You seem to give the impression that everything must start all over "from scratch" even after the evidence against your position was already made clear in your last attempt.   
But evidently the most common tactic, and the one I am trying to understand in this current thread, too, is this tendency to offer completely illogical nonsense as if it is relevant to the questions and claims being made. There appears to be a lot of bluster and obfuscation and I can't always tell if it's on purpose. If it is, I don't know who you would be trying to bluster here.
But if you were truly looking for a simple and clear question, in a presentation of facts without references, then I could oblige that, too. But first I'd like to ask if you would address any of the very simple questions that have already been brought up.
One, for example, was:
What is the year you get for the beginning of the 70 years of Babylonian domination assuming you agree with the Watch Tower Society's assessment about these 70 years that ended in 539 B.C.E.? (See the previous post for the references to Jeremiah 25:8-27 in chapter 19 of Isaiah's Prophecy.) If you still insist that this date is "nonsense," as you called it, then please explain why you think the Society's idea here is nonsense, and why it's still on JW.ORG?

Have you written the Watchtower Society to tell them that this claim is "nonsense"?
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
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. If you don't have the Watchtower Library CD/DVD installed just click the link to jw.org here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102000039 and scroll down to paragraph 21 (page 256) to see the same point.
So, are you saying you do not agree with the assessment of the Watchtower Society that the 70 years of Babylonia's greatest domination ends in 539 B.C.E.?  If Babylon's 70 years of domination ended in 539, then when did it begin? I get 539+70=609.
 Unless you can offer a different answer, I'll have to assume that you get the same thing. So why do you call this claim "nonsense"? Usually, you appear to be defending what's on JW.ORG.
Yes. I see that JW.ORG also does something just like what you say Carl Jonsson did. Do you think that JW.ORG got this idea from Carl Jonsson? Jonsson wrote about 15 years before the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book was written in 2000?
You seem confused about the reason that there is any supposed "conflict" over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587. The reason is explained on JW.ORG and it has absolutely nothing to do with different chronologies for the divided monarchy. The Bible lists both the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar for what appears to be the same Jerusalem event. It can simply be a matter of whether the Bible is including Nebuchadnezzar's accession year when referring to the Jerusalem event.
*** 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. The scriptures quoted are as follows:
(Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:8, 9) 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; . . .
I know you already knew this from a previous conversation.

You were using the term "honesty is a two-way street" as if it were an excuse to explain why you made a false claim. In a "debate" you don't get to make false claims and then make excuses for it. You should be honest no matter what you think of the other person's evidence.
There is no gap in the NB evidence. You don't create a gap in another set of evidence by simply making a claim that one exists:
Let's say that I have a coin collection of all the different types of United States coins made during World War 1: a 1914 penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, silver dollar, gold quarter-eagle, gold half-eagle, etc., etc., from each of the applicable locations where coins are officially minted. Let's say that  I have an entire set not just from 1914, but also from 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. Now you come along and tell me that there is a three-year gap in my WW1 coin collection. But that doesn't create a gap in my collection. It does not create a gap in the evidence for when WW1 started and ended. It just creates a gap in your credibility.
If I ask you where this supposed three-year gap might be placed, you could say that the extra three years should be placed between 1916 and 1917. Again, this claim is only a gap in your own credibility and it has no effect on the evidence for what coins were made during World War 1 and it has no effect on the evidence for the actual years of World War 1. It's just a claim. Even if it came from your beloved grandfather who has never told a lie before, it still doesn't mean that the start of World War 1 must now be reset to 1911 instead of 1914.
You could insist that there must be a three-year gap because your grandfather actually told you that World War 1 started in 1911. He is so sure of it that he has also pushed back the beginning of the U.S. Civil war to 1858 instead of 1861, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Britain to July 4, 1773 instead of 1776. But this would only mean that you (and your grandfather) have a gap. It does not produce any gap in United States chronology or coinage.
We are certainly not discussing any gap in the NB evidence itself, but a gap in someone else's claim about it. We are discussing the idea that you believe there is a gap somewhere in the NB, but you still don't even know exactly where that gap should be placed. We are in exactly the same type situation that would be created if you and your grandfather were claiming that World War 1 started in 1911 instead of 1914, assuming that you agreed that it ended in 1918, but that WW1 covered parts of 8 different years (1911-1918) instead of parts of 5 different years (1914-1918). But you still don't know where the current evidence for WW1 from 1914 to 1918 went wrong. Perhaps the three years of information you need to add should be inserted between the current evidence for 1916 and 1917. Or between the current evidence for 1917 and 1918. Or perhaps the three years should be added between February 3, 1915 and February 4, 1915.
The history of these Watchtower dates that you are relying on is fuzzy. The reasons the Watchtower has needed them to be fuzzy becomes sharp and clear when you study the history of the Watchtower's chronology claims more closely. And you don't even need the older publications because the CURRENT "Insight" book admits that the two year difference between 539 and 537 is based on something that "is very probable." Current publications put the third year of Cyrus at 536, but the first year of Cyrus is pushed as closely as possible toward the spring of 537. Obviously, the WTS does this, even though Cyrus had the authority to release captives in 539 and 538, but we just don't want any Jews coming back in 539 or 538,  as that would throw off 1914 by throwing off 607 by a year or two. In the past, we allowed them to come back in 536 because we thought that was the first year of Cyrus (and therefore put Jerusalem's destruction in 606). If we were arguing for the same two-year-plus delay that we argue for now in the WTS publications, then the Jews might not be back home until 534 or even 533. The fuzziness has worked in favor of the WTS to keep 1914 afloat.
The WTS was always willing to re-adjust the old dates, although to be fair, the solution for a while was to change 1914 to 1915. Both Russell and Rutherford began using 1915 as the new end of the Gentile Times even until a few years after 1914.
During the time of trouble, closing this age, they will be exalted to power, but their "reign" of righteousness over the world could not precede A.D. 1915—when the Times of the Gentiles have expired. (The Time Is At Hand, p.81.) the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. (ibid, p.101)
Here's what we the WTS said when they were first learning about the "zero year" problem in the Watch Tower from December 1912. By 1914 the WTS "discerned" that there WAS a zero year, but still kept referring to October 1915 as the end of the Gentile Times when it looked like 1914 wasn't working out. Apparently, they misunderstood the quote in the Encylopedia Britannica, below, referring to a common misunderstanding that is still made today by amateur astronomers. Then in 1943, the WTS "discerned" that there was NO zero year.:
---------quote from Watch Tower, December 1912, p. 377 [new paragraphs shown as bullet points]---------------
Whether Dionysius began his A.D. period January 1st, A.D. 1, or whether he began it January 1st, A.D. 0, we may not be sure; neither may we feel too certain whether he began the B.C. dates December 31st, B.C. 0, or December 31st, B.C. 1. For all ordinary purposes this question would be rather immaterial. But it has a very important bearing on our calculation of Gentile Times. . . . Coming now to a very critical examination of the date 536 B.C., there is an open question: Shall we call it 536 full years to A.D., or 434 [sic] full years? The difference in time between October 1st and January 1st would be the fourth of a year; hence our query is respecting 536-1/4 or 535-1/4 years B.C. What is the proper method of calculation, is in dispute. If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C. As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on." Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.  

Well, I'll look into how dutifully the problem has been corrected. Let's hope it's duty-free, considering where you've been.
So, you are saying that the 20 years can be inserted altogether in one piece starting in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was also the same point as King Zedekiah's 11th year. This would, of course, mean that Nebuchadnezzar did not just rule for 43 years, but for 63 years. This is where those 10,000 tablets could really help out your theory. There are plenty of tablets representing every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from his first to his 43rd, but you have absolutely zero for every one of these extra 20 years.
The evidence from thousands of tablets is actually definitive enough. But you would also have an  bigger problem, the Bible itself:
Notice that if your dates were correct then Jehoiachin would have surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 which you would call 617, assuming this 20-year gap theory was correct. This is admitted in the "Insight" book:
*** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E.  . . .  In fulfillment of Jehovah’s word through Jeremiah, he was taken into Babylonian exile. (Jer 22:24-27; 24:1; 27:19, 20; 29:1, 2) Other members of the royal household, court officials, craftsmen, and warriors were also exiled.—2Ki 24:14-16;
(2 Kings 25:27) 27 And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King E?vil-mer?o·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah from prison. *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
In the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s exile, Ezekiel began his prophetic work. (Eze 1:2) About 32 years later, evidently in 580 B.C.E., Jehoiachin was released from prison by Nebuchadnezzar’s successor Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk) and given a position of favor above all the other captive kings. Thereafter he ate at Evil-merodach’s table and received a daily allowance.—2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34. In other words, the Bible shows that your theory is impossible because the Bible confirms that the secular tablets are correct in giving Nebuchadnezzar only 43 years. You can't squeeze out more than 43 years in his reign, if Evil-Merodach became king in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile. The Bible also, therefore, agrees with "Ptolemy's Canon" and the evidence from all the astronomical tablets here, too.

Ann
Sitting on the throne gives time to review  another's foolishness and to refute nonsense.
At least we agree on one thing-It is impressive.
scholar JW
 
 
 
scholar JW

No. Honesty is NOT a two-way street. I hope you are not thinking of "theocratic war strategy" when you consider it OK to be dishonest if you consider someone to be an enemy or not entitled to honesty.
*** w57 5/1 p. 286 Use Theocratic War Strategy ***
So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth. *** it-2 p. 244 Lie ***
". . . saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth . . ." This is misdirection through circular reasoning.
If Bob says 20+30=70, and Jim says 20+50=70, Bob can't say Jim is dishonest because Jim is ignoring Bob's 20-integer Gap.
No. Chronology is not "personal."
This is part of the false, circular reasoning. I find no Gap, and yet I choose NOT to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years. I find all 70 years perfectly accounted for.
I have already stated my acceptance of making the insertion point of the 70 years of Babylonian "empire" from 609 to 539. But I am not against someone accepting a "fuzzy" beginning or end to this period -- within reason. I know, for example, that the Watchtower teaches a "fuzzy end" of this period that admits that the Babylonian empire ended in 539 but also admits that we are only guessing when we say that the Jews returned to end this period in 537. I am not concerned about the 2 years of the Watchtower's "fuzziness" as you would call it. There was a time when the Watchtower accepted 536 as the first year of Cyrus - and not only the first year, but the year of the Edict itself. If there were good reasons to accept that this "70-year period" was shorter, or longer by a few years, or even symbolic, I'd have no problem with it, and I therefore have no problem with a date near 537 as the end of the period. (And I'd have no problem with a date like 607 as the beginning of the 70 years.) But you will see why I consider "honesty" to be an integral part of the discussion when we look more closely at how the Watch Tower publications have "toyed" with this time period.
*** it-1 p. 458 Chronology ***
During Cyrus’ first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would permit the Jews time to make necessary preparations, effect the four-month journey to Jerusalem, and still arrive there by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E. *** w07 9/1 p. 19 par. 9 Highlights From the Book of Daniel ***
The year is now 539 B.C.E. Babylon has fallen, and Darius the Mede has become ruler over the kingdom of the Chaldeans *** w05 5/1 p. 12 par. 18 The Resurrection—A Teaching That Affects You ***
he received a vision in 536 B.C.E., the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia. (Daniel 1:1; 10:1) Some time during that third year of Cyrus, Daniel received a vision of the march of world powers So Babylon fell in 539, and Cyrus therefore had the power and authority to declare Babylon's captives to be free immediately: in 539. In fact, one Biblical meaning of "first year" as you know (and as you yourself have pointed out previously) can refer to the accession year, which in this case would be 539. But notice that the "Insight" book, in the first of the three quotes above, pushes his "first-year" decree all the way out into 537 or "toward" 537, but in the last quote his third year is 536.
Older Watchtower publications placed Cyrus first year in 536, or even his accession year when Babylon was destroyed, in 536. So in Watchtower terms, both his first year and his third year have, at times, been stated to be 536.
*** Watch Tower, 6/1/1905, p.183
In accordance with the Edict of Cyrus (536 B.C.) many of the Israelites returned from Babylon and laid the foundations of the Temple. Ezra 4:24, however, states that the work then "ceased unto the 2nd year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia." The length of time from the Edict of Cyrus in 536 B.C. . . . Throughout all of the earlier publications the statements were always consistent with these examples below:
All students of chronology may be said to be agreed, that the first year of Cyrus was the year 536 before the beginning of our Anno Domini era. (Watch Tower, 5/1896, p.113) With these facts before us, we readily find the date for the beginning of the Gentile Times of dominion; for the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date--both secular and religious histories with marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy's Canon, which places it B.C. 536. (The Time Is At Hand, p.79-80) So the THREE YEARS of "fuzziness" in the Watchtower's explanations of this date have all been necessary in order to keep 1914 afloat. At first, it could have been that the Jews began returning in the year of the Edict, 536, back when all students of chronology supposedly agreed that the first year of Cyrus was 536. Then, when all students of chronology must have supposedly realized that "Ptolemy's Canon" actually would have placed the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus in 539, that's when some scrambling began. The solution was to try to push the Edict as close to 537 as possible (see "Insight," above) nearly two years after Cyrus had destroyed Babylon.
Then we still needed an extra year for 1914 to work, so we thought there would have to be a few months of preparation time, and then about 4 more months of travel. Perfect!! We resolved the three years of fuzziness with some conjecture.
You already know that something very similar happened when it was discovered that "all students of chronology" realized that there was no ZERO year. The destruction of Jerusalem had to be moved from 606 to 607 in order for 1914 to work. So it was a "fuzzy" date anyway, and moving it just one year was not a problem.
Therefore in Watchtower chronology, BOTH ends of this period were considered very fuzzy and flexible.

Another very helpful non-JW/Bible-believing discussion from a respected journal for @Anna:
JEREMIAH'S SEVENTY YEARS FOR BABYLON: A RE-ASSESSMENT PART I: THE SCRIPTURAL DATA
JEREMIAH'S SEVENTY YEARS FOR BABYLON: A RE-ASSESSMENT PART II: THE HISTORICAL DATA
 

@Anna ,
I think that the following explanation offers a good start for discussing the points in a well organized manner. It's well written, easy to understand, and I don't think it comes from anyone who has a biased stake in the current Watchtower explanation. It's just another person trying to grapple with the same Bible verses that we are, and trying to defend the Bible against Bible detractors. From here to the remainder of the post, it's all a quote from an article at http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/years.htm
-----------beginning of quote, through end of this post -------------
Seventy years of Babylonian rule: A detailed look at Jeremiah 25:9-12 and some objections that skeptics have
Many people have questioned the accuracy of Jeremiah's prophecy about a 70-year period during which Babylon would dominate Judah and hold Jews as captives in Babylon. These questions, in my opinion, are based on a mistaken belief that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. My response is in three parts:
Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended. Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began. Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy:
1. Jeremiah 25:9-12 said that Judah would serve Babylon for 70 years.
2. Jeremiah 29:10 makes it clear that Babylon's domination of Judah would include a captivity during which Jews would be taken as captives to Babylon.
3. Jeremiah 29:10 said that the captivity would end when the "70 years" ended.
4. But Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years.
5. Babylon's rule lasted 70 years, from 609 BC when the last Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit II, was defeated in Harran, until 539 BC when the Medo-Persians conquered Babylon.
Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended:
The people who have questioned the accuracy of this prophecy are, as far as I have been able to determine, are correct in that the captivity Jews in Babylon did not last 70 years, if the commonly assigned dates for the captivity are taken seriously. Most historical sources that I have seen state that 539 BC was the year that Babylon was conquered by the Medo-Persians. And that would seem to be a reasonable ending date for the captivity. But when did the captivity begin? Some say it began in 597 BC, when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem. If this date is accepted, then the captivity spanned no more than 59 years. So how does or 59 years equal 70 years? It can't and it doesn't.
Believers, including myself, often point out that the book of Daniel states that there was an earlier taking of captives from Judah to Babylon, in either 605 BC or 606 BC, depending on which source of information is used. And, the believers often point out that although Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, he didn't release the Jews until the following year, in 538 BC or even 537 BC. And some believers have assigned the actual year in which the Jews of Babylon did begin to return to Judah was 537 BC or 536 BC. Using the two extremes as the starting and ending points, one could arrive at a 70-year span. But, in my opinion, none of this is even necessary because Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years.
In Jeremiah 25:9-12, it said that Judah and the surrounding nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. But, Jeremiah does not say that the forced deportation of Jews from Judah would last 70 years. The captivity is something that grew out of Babylon's domination of Judah. The domination was supposed to span 70 years, but Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would span 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 25:9-12:
Jeremiah 25:9-12
9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon," declares the LORD, "and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin.
10 I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp.
11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
12 "But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the LORD, "and will make it desolate forever.
But, in Jeremiah 29:10, Jeremiah does clearly say that the captivity will terminate at the end of the 70-year period. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 29:10:
Jeremiah 29:10
This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.
In Daniel 9:1-2, the prophet Daniel refers to the 70 years in that "the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years." But he too does not state that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. What did he mean by "desolation?" Some might argue that he meant "captivity." But that would be an assumption, and nothing more than an assumption. And, in my opinion, given the fact that Daniel is probably referring to the Jeremiah prophecy, it would be a weak assumption to think that he meant "captivity" when he said "desolation." The desolation could simply refer to Babylonian domination, lasting from 609 BC to 539 BC. Others might claim that the "desolation" that Daniel referred to might actually be a reference to the 70 years in which the Temple had been destroyed. The Temple, and Jerusalem, were destroyed in 586 BC by the Babylonians. The Temple, which was rebuilt, was consecrated in 516 BC, 70 years after its destruction. Below is the NIV translation of Daniel 9:1-2:
Daniel 9:1-2
1 In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom--
2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.
In 2 Chronicles 36:19-21, the Bible refers to a 70 year period during which the land of Judah enjoyed its Sabbath rests. This Bible passage begins with a reference to the 586 BC destruction of Jerusalem, during which the Temple was also destroyed. If it specifically meant to apply Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy to the destruction of the city, then that application could find fulfillment in that the Temple remained destroyed and non-operational for 70 years, from 586 BC to 516 BC. After the Jews rebuilt the Temple, it was consecrated in 516 BC. But regardless of how the 70 years reference is being used in this passage, it does not say that the captivity itself would last 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of 2 Chronicles 36:19-21:
2 Chronicles 36:19-21
19 They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there.
20 He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power.
21 The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.
In Zechariah 1:12, the prophet Zechariah makes a passing reference to a 70 year period. But that passage also does not in any way contradict my contention that the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah refers to Babylonian rule and that Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years.
Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began:
When did Babylon begin its domination of Judah? We know that there are historical records that claim that the Assyrian Empire dominated Judah, and many other nations. And we know that the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire.
In 612 B.C. the Babylonians and the Medes conquered Nineveh, which at that time was the capital of the Assyrian Empire. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "…Nineveh suffered a defeat from which it never recovered. Extensive traces of ash, representing the sack of the city by Babylonians, Scythians, and Medes in 612 BC, have been found in many parts of the Acropolis. After 612 BC the city ceased to be important…"
After the defeat of Nineveh, the last of the Assyrian kings, Ashur-uballit II, fled to the west with members of his army. Most online historical references that I have been able to find state that the reign of Ashur-uballit II ended in 609 BC. My sources for this are the two Web site addresses below, the first of which is a page from the Missouri Western State College web site:
http://crain.english.mwsc.edu/Jonah/assyrians.htm
The conquest of the Assyrian Empire allowed Babylon and the Medes to divide the empire amongst themselves. The Babylonians chose a vast area of the Assyrian-controlled territories, including Judah and the surrounding countries.
Using the 609 BC date for the demise of the Assyrian Empire and for the rise of the new Babylonian Empire, and using the 539 BC date for the end of the Babylonian Empire, we end up with a 70-year span of Babylonian rule. That, for the reasons described above, is what I believe is the 70-year period referred to in Jeremiah 25:9-12 and Jeremiah 29:10.
 
----- end of quote from http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/years.htm

@scholar JW,
At least you have admitted that your claim was totally FALSE. Thank you.
Let's review:
I said that we [in the WT publications] have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539, for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed. We just say that it's in there somewhere, and maybe someday maybe some evidence will turn up for it. You said, that's nonsense. More specifically you even said: "Your claim that 'we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539 for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed' is simply nonsense." I said: there is a simple way for you to show whether you are telling the truth. If you actually do have an idea at what point between 607 and 539 you have added the 20 years, simply tell me where it is. Then you admit that you have still FAILED to identify the point in question. You said that you can INSERT the 20 years anywhere between 587/586 and 539 BCE. Your last statement is so patently false. It's such an admission of failure that I'm surprised you ever bothered to call something I said "nonsense" and then so clearly showed that it was correct all along.
As I said, it's a matter of honesty.

... and finishes it in 520 BCE, while acknowledging that "it is difficult to delimit the exilic period historically" and there were "substantial deportations" from earlier times (p. 2). This doesn't help your defense of WT's chronology, Neil. Why bring it up?
Perhaps you need to re-read my earlier post that evidences the opposite.
ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21
"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."
Jer. 25:11 - "'And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.'"
You don't know whether Furuli's 'research' is valid or not. You've not checked.
 

JW Insider
The Babylonian Gap of 20 years is proved by comparing that period with the 70 years of biblical history, The Bible specifies the period which was commensurate with the Babylonian Period therefore that Period requires that adjustment. Such a corrective harmonized all of the data allowing an accurate scheme of chronology to be realized
The scheme of WT chronology.is a valid presentation of all of the evidence and can be tested and has been subject to scholarly inquiry over many decades but recent research has proven its validity such as in the case of Furuli's research into VAT 4956 amongst other things. I am no late entrant into this discussion but remain very comfortable not only with our Chronology but of others and have long debated these matters over decades with many different WT critics.
You do not need a specific point to insert the twenty years but if you require some specificity I would insert it between the Neb's 18th year and the last year of Nabonidus' reign in 539 BCE for that will do nicely.Honesty requires consideration of all relevant factors so if you ignore the 70 years then your scholarship is compromised. This requires sound methodology and this is plainly evident because all factors are considered even secular evidence where necessary and relevant. There is no room for pretentiousness in Chronology but simply following the evidence where it leads.
Traditional Chronology ignores the seventy years mostly and where some have included it in their schemes there is a lack of consistency in its timing or its nature is misconstrued eg such lists or schemes end it with the Fall of Babylon and not the Return so this creates many problems. In your last paragraph, I have answered your question in the foregoing: iNSERT the 20 years anywhere between 587/586 and 539 BCE and that will expand the timeline to 607 BCE. QED
scholar JW

Not true. There has never been found to be a 20 year gap. That's the problem. And it really is a problem of honesty. No one has found one, no one has seen any hint of one. No one would even know where to look for such a gap because each and every year is completely accounted for.
As I said, it is a matter of honesty. Although merely highlighting the word "scheme" here would be a cheap shot. The real problems were already discussed and you (scholar JW) already failed to provide any evidence for your claims, even though you gave the impression you have been looking for evidence even among scholarly circles for many years now.
It's almost like you have come into a room with 100 people to claim that 20+30=70, while 99 others are saying that 20+50=70. You can't find your evidence, but say it exists, then you go away for a time but come back saying the evidence exists, but you still can't find it.
As I said, it is a matter of honesty. You don't have any idea at what point between 607 and 539 where you have added the 20 years. It's as if you think it just floats somewhere between the two dates. Then you say it is proven, but you still say that you have no idea where the point is. You even admit the words that:
"there is is a 20 years gap which floats between the two because of the '70' years missing from the NB Period historically." What does that even mean? That you actually do know the point because it floats somewhere at some unknown point? As I said, it's a matter of honesty. What you have done here is what scholars call a lack of methodology. It's completely unsound academic practice. Sorry, but it sounds like pretentiousness in the hopes that no one will read what you just said very carefully.
Yes. There are even more lines of secular evidence that corroborate a timetable which is also confirmed by the Bible. And this overwhelming evidence is no challenge at all to the Bible's chronology. The Bible chronology works just fine with the secular chronology here. The 70 years of Jeremiah is a nearly perfect fit, as a matter of fact.
But there is a simple way for you to show whether you are telling the truth. If you actually do have an idea at what point between 607 and 539 you have added the 20 years, simply tell me where it is. You have the secular dates, nearly a 50 year period from 587 to 538, and you know the names and length of reigns of each of the know Neo-Babylonian kings in this period that have even been admitted by the Watchtower publications. So just tell us where the extra 20 years fits into that secular chronology. Show us at what point the secular chronology went wrong, and then we'll know if what you said was true, or nonsense.

In 626 BCE, Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father) took the Babylonian throne from the Assyrian ruler, Sin-šarra-iškun. Yes, Nabop. began a new era of Babylonian rule BUT he didn't gain hegemony over parts of Babylonia and the predominant power Assyria for some years. There were some Babylonian cities/states that were still loyal to Assyria - it was, politically, a messy time with each side trying to wrest control from the other, bringing in support from other sympathetic nations. Eventually, Nabop. prevailed and, with the help of the Medes, trashed Assyria's capital Nineveh in 612 BCE. Aššur-uballit (the new Assyrian king) went west and made Harran the new Assyrian capital. Long story short, Nabop. conquered Harran in 610/609 BCE and took its spoils. Aššur-uballit tried to take it back a few months later in the summer of 609 BCE but failed. The Assyrian kingdom was finished.
So, if one wants to take the 70 years' period of nations' servitude literally (rather than as a rounded or figurative number), one could reasonably argue that Babylonian domination over the nations began in 609 BCE and ended with the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE.
The point about how long the exiles were 'at Babylon' is that Jeremiah's letter at Jer. 29 is specifically addressed to the vast number of Jews who had been deported in 597 BCE with King Jehoiachin and the royal family (the second recorded siege of Jerusalem in the Bible - the first one, of course, being the one mentioned at Dan. 1:1). Jer. 29:10 says that when the 70 year period was completed, God would turn his attention to these exiles and make good on his promise to bring them back home ... only, if we use WT time, those exiles would have been taken in 617 BCE. So, assuming a 537 BCE return (just for the sake of argument), it would mean the majority of the total number of exiles (from all the deportations) would be 'at Babylon' for 80 - not 70 - years. It doesn't fit.
 

It's pretty simple. The Watchtower merely relies on secular dating to get all dates during this period.
To get any date up to and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, they merely take the secular date and add 20 years:
587+20=607 605+20=625 609+20=629 In effect, this would have to have gone all the way back to Adam, if there had been an unambiguous timeline going all the way back. In fact, it averages out to something similar when comparing to Bishop Ussher's numbers which put Adam's creation at 4004 BCE and we effectively add 22 years to that (4004+22=4026).
For any date after and including the destruction of Babylon in 539, the Watchtower relies completely on this secular date. They merely take the secular date and add 0 years:
539+0=539 There is an exception made for the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, but only so that we can make the 70 weeks of years fit an interpretation that is easier to explain.
*** 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.—See PERSIA, PERSIANS (The Reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes). At this point, with Artaxerxes, we are moving back from the secular dating by 10 years, not 20, but that was after accepting the secular dating as exactly correct in 539. The reason is always to make our interpretations work.
The embarrassing part of all of this is that we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539, for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed. We just say that it's in there somewhere, and maybe someday maybe some evidence will turn up for it.
Remember that the WT had to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian calendar to push the destruction of Jerusalem far enough back so that 2,520 years would end in 1914. In effect, then, the WT must add 20 years to every secular date. The WT is forced to break not just one line of evidence for 587, but at least half-a-dozen lines of evidence, plus the evidence derived from LITERALLY!! ALL of more than 10,000 clay tablets and literally ALL the evidence from Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian sources in the relevant time period.
if you look too closely at this, be prepared to become ashamed or become [academically] dishonest. It's just my opinion, but I see no other choices.

In 626 BCE, Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father) took the Babylonian throne from the Assyrian ruler, Sin-šarra-iškun. Yes, Nabop. began a new era of Babylonian rule BUT he didn't gain hegemony over parts of Babylonia and the predominant power Assyria for some years. There were some Babylonian cities/states that were still loyal to Assyria - it was, politically, a messy time with each side trying to wrest control from the other, bringing in support from other sympathetic nations. Eventually, Nabop. prevailed and, with the help of the Medes, trashed Assyria's capital Nineveh in 612 BCE. Aššur-uballit (the new Assyrian king) went west and made Harran the new Assyrian capital. Long story short, Nabop. conquered Harran in 610/609 BCE and took its spoils. Aššur-uballit tried to take it back a few months later in the summer of 609 BCE but failed. The Assyrian kingdom was finished.
So, if one wants to take the 70 years' period of nations' servitude literally (rather than as a rounded or figurative number), one could reasonably argue that Babylonian domination over the nations began in 609 BCE and ended with the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE.
The point about how long the exiles were 'at Babylon' is that Jeremiah's letter at Jer. 29 is specifically addressed to the vast number of Jews who had been deported in 597 BCE with King Jehoiachin and the royal family (the second recorded siege of Jerusalem in the Bible - the first one, of course, being the one mentioned at Dan. 1:1). Jer. 29:10 says that when the 70 year period was completed, God would turn his attention to these exiles and make good on his promise to bring them back home ... only, if we use WT time, those exiles would have been taken in 617 BCE. So, assuming a 537 BCE return (just for the sake of argument), it would mean the majority of the total number of exiles (from all the deportations) would be 'at Babylon' for 80 - not 70 - years. It doesn't fit.
 

The JW interpretation can't accommodate either meaning because, if it was "at Babylon," the context demands that the exiles Jeremiah was addressing would have been there 80 years - not 70, and the destruction of Jerusalem was still only a future possibility rather than a foregone conclusion. Anyway, we've had this conversation many times before - the scriptural and historical facts speak for themselves and you *still* won't change your views to align with them. Hope you and yours are well, btw.  

The new JW Broadcasting with Sam Herd includes his talk to the Gilead Graduation class.
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/StudioFeatured/pub-jwb_201712_1_VIDEO
There were several items of note, but this one seems important. In the introduction he mentions evidence that Jesus has been around Jehovah for at least 4 and a half billion years, based on that morning's text plus a rock found in Australia. And yet, the Father knows so much more than Jesus. Therefore we have only begun to touch on a few things. It's like we are new-born with our eyes barely open. He makes fun of things we thought only twenty years ago. At the 6 minute, 45 second mark he starts to say the following:
When measured by Jesus, we're newborn infants. We barely have our eyes open. Barely. What we see is not what we're going to see -- in years to come. We're just looking; we're just learning. We're touching things -- and for the first time. Just think in the past 10 years how many things we've touched for the first time -- even though we've read the Bible over and over again and we've listened to it being read to us over and over again. But, we've just touched a few things: like the generation. Ahhh! [purposely making a sound as if something was bad-tasting in his throat and he needed to spit it out] Twenty years ago we -- "Ahhh" -- the generation. [with a dismissive hand movement] And now we know all about that generation, right? And so many other things. Then Brother Losch starts singing a gospel song "Oh Happy Day! . . . when Jesus washed my sins away." He also touches on the NA'OS issue with respect to the Great Crowd serving not just near the temple or before the temple, but IN THE TEMPLE. I liked his statement: Have a positive outlook: Don't be sad that some rosebushes have thorns, but be glad that some thornbushes have roses on it. Then Brother Breaux tries to prove that Jehovah forgets using a verse in Hebrews that says he doesn't. His theme was work is more important than titles. Gary Breaux has told people privately that he was surprised that his talk on the two-witness rule was added to the monthly broadcast last month. I thought that Brother Breaux also related a story about District Overseers that could give some insight into the experience with those special talks on 1975 that were being given by District Overseers in the late 1960's and 1970's. Here are his exact words, taken out of context, of course:
I'd like to tell you another little story about a brother that had somewhat of a difficulty with this [showing love]. When I was a young circuit overseer, uh, the District Overseer I had was, uh, I was afraid of him. Everybody else was afraid of him, too.

A lot of people think it's part of Christianity to think of God and Satan in similar ways, as if they are working together, and Satan is doing God's work for him by punishing bad as God rewards the good.
After 60 years, the new NWT Bible removed the references satyrs in 2013 by changing the "goat shaped demon" references to just "wild goats." Here's an example:
(Isaiah 34:14) 14 And haunters of waterless regions must meet up with howling animals, and even the goat-shaped demon will call to its companion. . . . This was changed to:
(Isaiah 34:14) . . .Desert creatures will meet up with howling animals, And the wild goat will call to its companion.. . . Even the Greek word satyr appears to come from Hebrew. The following is the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 34:14 and Isaiah 13:21 also.
שָׂעִיר sa`iyr   (see https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/13/21/t_conc_692021 )  
(Isaiah 13:21, 22) 21 And there the haunters of waterless regions will certainly lie down, and their houses must be filled with eagle owls. And there the ostriches must reside, and goat-shaped demons themselves will go skipping about there. 22 And jackals must howl in her dwelling towers, and the big snake will be in the palaces of exquisite delight.. . .(NWT pre-2013) KJV:
(Isaiah 13:21,22, KJV) But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces:  

There will likely be more prosecutions in the aftermath of the ARC, @Barbara Snook. This is a good thing. This former JW may have been targeting 'worldly' children since he left the Org. Other unreported molesters may still be active members of congregations. Former JW or current JW, what has been hidden is coming to light and, if convicted, the community should be that little bit safer.
Also, if you really don't like these kinds of news stories - and the thread title was sufficiently clear on what it was about - then choose not to read them!