JW Insider

I find your words to be dishonest and manipulative. You pretend that there are "respective chronologies" represented here. There is only one chronology represented here. All the referenced sources, dozens of them, give mostly consistent opinions about a single chronology. It's a single chronology that all of them consider definitive enough to pinpoint the various deportation, destruction, and construction events. They understand the meaning of a "definitive" or "Absolute NB Chronology" or else there would be no structure for all of them to agree upon the dates of those events, within a year or two.
Opinions about which of those fixed dates should be interpreted as important to the 70 years prophecy doesn't change the archaeological evidence for a fixed chronology, that all of them accept.
If after all these years, you do not yet understand why scholars might consider either or both of these two dates, then you are being dishonest in associating yourself with the word scholar. I note that several persons have explained it to you over the years, but you still claim to be vexed and troubled over why this 12 month difference is possible. And it's such a simple explanation, too. The scholars who state a preference for either 586 or 587 are not confused, why are you?
Making such a ludicrous statement is just evidence that you are hoping to play to a stupid audience. Is there a margin of error in the archaeological evidence over which year was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year? You are trying to fool people. Personally, I couldn't care less if the NB Chronology is "absolute" or not, but you still need to go back to your books if you still don't know what the term "absolute" means with respect to a chronological timeline. I'm sure that the reason you will never give the historian's definition or archaeologist's definition is because you know that the term can be used to manipulate prejudice among those who won't look it up for themselves. But this has already been looked up for you in this very topic, and the last time you brought it up under a different topic, and another time before that. So it's hard for me to believe that this is merely incompetence. What else could it be, but another example of dishonesty and manipulation?
Again, you are playing to the prejudices of people you must think are too stupid to look up information for themselves. You admit the 20 year gap between the archaeological evidence and an interpretation, and call that twenty year gap "no 'margin of error.'" Yet the Watchtower admits this gap in evidence and claims that such evidence might still show up someday in the future.
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
After admitting that the evidence is strong, and consistent, the only hope is that it's being misinterpreted or that "yet undiscovered material" could drastically alter the chronology. And yet, there are thousands of pieces of material that consistently fix the NB chronology, and new material has been published since the time that statement was made. Unfortunately, it just keeps supporting and bolstering the exact same timeline -- no exceptions. After 10,000 pieces of evidence, is there really any hope that new material will produce the drastic changes the WTS needs?
Even the WTS interpretation of the 70 years is not set in stone. The same book says:
*** kc p. 189 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed.
And, of course, if you really study the various Bible statements, most people (according to your sources) see that this is NOT the most direct understanding of the various Bible statements. And even if it were, that last quoted statement is meaningless unless the WTS wanted to use the 70 year reference of Zechariah which most likely refers to about 586 to 516, plus or minus a couple years.
There was a common thread among those last 8, the ones who differed from the usual 609/605 start and a 539 end. It was a rejection of the authority of the Bible. They often interpreted the 70 years as a prophecy that might not have even come from Jeremiah or the Chronicler, but which was supposedly imposed on the text from a much later date. Funny how those few exceptions you count on the most to promote uncertainty and doubt, actually got to those interpretations by rejecting the originality and authority of the Biblical text.
 

I think you meant "True" not false, since you are agreeing with me that Bryan would say that the 70 years had already ended with the return from Babylon (even though Bryan recognizes that some scholars start it in 587/6 with the "2nd [major] deportation," and end it around 516 BCE. Wright, he says, effectively doesn't end the 70 years at all (p.108), and Michael Fishbane is an example of one who supports 587/6 to 516/5 (p.112):
Some have suggested that, unlike the Chronicler, Zechariah regarded the seventy years as complete with the reconstruction of the temple in 516/515. Thus, Michael Fishbane dates the oracle of 1:12 to 520/519 and thinks it “conceivable that the anticipated fulfilment of a seventy-year oracle believed to have been effective from the second Judaean exile (in 587/6) may have actually fuelled national energies towards the restoration of the Temple.”13
Bryan does not think the 70 years is that period of time from the destruction of Jerusalem to the return to Babylon, if that's what you think he is implying. Note how he treats Jeremiah's prophecy about it (p.110-111):
Jeremiah 25 places the original prophecy in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, that is, just prior to the exile in 605. If false prophets in Judea had dismissed Jeremiah’s warning of punishment prior to the exile, false prophets in Babylon following the exile scorned the idea that it would last anything like seventy years. As a result, Jeremiah reaffirms the original prediction of seventy years of service in the form of a letter preserved in chapter 29: only when the seventy years were complete would the exile come to an end. . . . Those who have stayed behind in Judah will not be exempt from punishment. Although they have not been sent into exile for seventy years (29:16), they will nevertheless suffer a full measure of covenantal curses: “I am going to let loose on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten”
This matches his comments about Daniel's use of the 70 years (p.114):
In 9:2, Daniel understands from his reading of Jeremiah’s scroll that the exile was to last seventy years. This prompts Daniel’s prayer of repentance. The prayer is set in the first year of Darius, that is, at the passing of imperial power from the Babylonians to the MedoPersians. In the narrative, the collapse of Babylonian hegemony is the sign that points to the impending fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prediction that Jerusalem would be desolate for seventy years.
It's curious that he seems to believe that Daniel is reinterpreting the 70 years as 70 x 7=490, but significantly counts it as 49x10=490, possibly referring to the fact that the first answer to exile with reference to Jerusalem itself was only 49 years (until the first 49-year Jubilee via Cyrus), but that there would a full 10 Jubilees before the final week of years and full restoration. Bryan won't go along completely with this interpretation but refers to it as significant.  If that count is from 587 to 538, this is exactly 49 years.
Further, the significance of the first forty-nine years in the 490-year scheme goes beyond the fact that it is the first of ten jubilees. The author seems also to see the completion of the first jubilee as corresponding to the end of the first of seven seventy-year periods.20 This is indicated by the fact that the seventy years begins with the desolation of Jerusalem according to the word of the Lord (9:2) but that the first jubilee begins with the word of the Lord concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem (9:25).21(p.115)
[footnote] 21The referent of the “word” concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Dan 9:25 is disputed but is best understood as a designation of Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding the restoration of Jerusalem in Jer 30–31, which follows the prophecy in chapter 29 of the city’s desolation. So, e.g., Ernest Lucas, Daniel, ApOTC (Nottingham: Apollos, 2002), 243. Lucas dates the oracles of desolation to 605 BCE (Jer 25:12) and 597 BCE (Jer 29:10), preceding the oracles of restoration, which date to 587 (Jer 30:18–22, 31:38–40). Bergsma defends the view that the “word” refers to the edict of Cyrus that permitted the return of the exiles (“Persian Period as Penitential Era,” 58–60).
So even if Bryan doesn't fully accept this interpretation, he realizes that if one were to count from the destruction of Jerusalem to the edict of Cyrus, this would only be about 49 years, and would in fact match the first 49 year period of the 10.
Curious. When I think of a clown I think of those dressed up at a rodeo or circus who create diversions so that the audience doesn't realize the seriousness of a blunder or potential disaster. I have noticed that most of your posts are clownish in this sense of trying to create a diversion. But they are also laughably immature and unscholarly, which I guess would also qualify as clownish.
But you are being dishonest again, or at least manipulative with your language. Here's why:
I asked you very clearly. I asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who supports the WTS chronology, even within 2 years of it. And, I also asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who deviates from the standard archaeological evidence, even by as much as two years.:
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
I asked for any one scholar. You answered very clearly that you will give me two:
And now you call me a clown because you were devious and were caught? Do you think that all WItnesses are so stupid that we can't look things up and read for ourselves?
 
 

I find your words to be dishonest and manipulative. You pretend that there are "respective chronologies" represented here. There is only one chronology represented here. All the referenced sources, dozens of them, give mostly consistent opinions about a single chronology. It's a single chronology that all of them consider definitive enough to pinpoint the various deportation, destruction, and construction events. They understand the meaning of a "definitive" or "Absolute NB Chronology" or else there would be no structure for all of them to agree upon the dates of those events, within a year or two.
Opinions about which of those fixed dates should be interpreted as important to the 70 years prophecy doesn't change the archaeological evidence for a fixed chronology, that all of them accept.
If after all these years, you do not yet understand why scholars might consider either or both of these two dates, then you are being dishonest in associating yourself with the word scholar. I note that several persons have explained it to you over the years, but you still claim to be vexed and troubled over why this 12 month difference is possible. And it's such a simple explanation, too. The scholars who state a preference for either 586 or 587 are not confused, why are you?
Making such a ludicrous statement is just evidence that you are hoping to play to a stupid audience. Is there a margin of error in the archaeological evidence over which year was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year? You are trying to fool people. Personally, I couldn't care less if the NB Chronology is "absolute" or not, but you still need to go back to your books if you still don't know what the term "absolute" means with respect to a chronological timeline. I'm sure that the reason you will never give the historian's definition or archaeologist's definition is because you know that the term can be used to manipulate prejudice among those who won't look it up for themselves. But this has already been looked up for you in this very topic, and the last time you brought it up under a different topic, and another time before that. So it's hard for me to believe that this is merely incompetence. What else could it be, but another example of dishonesty and manipulation?
Again, you are playing to the prejudices of people you must think are too stupid to look up information for themselves. You admit the 20 year gap between the archaeological evidence and an interpretation, and call that twenty year gap "no 'margin of error.'" Yet the Watchtower admits this gap in evidence and claims that such evidence might still show up someday in the future.
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
After admitting that the evidence is strong, and consistent, the only hope is that it's being misinterpreted or that "yet undiscovered material" could drastically alter the chronology. And yet, there are thousands of pieces of material that consistently fix the NB chronology, and new material has been published since the time that statement was made. Unfortunately, it just keeps supporting and bolstering the exact same timeline -- no exceptions. After 10,000 pieces of evidence, is there really any hope that new material will produce the drastic changes the WTS needs?
Even the WTS interpretation of the 70 years is not set in stone. The same book says:
*** kc p. 189 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed.
And, of course, if you really study the various Bible statements, most people (according to your sources) see that this is NOT the most direct understanding of the various Bible statements. And even if it were, that last quoted statement is meaningless unless the WTS wanted to use the 70 year reference of Zechariah which most likely refers to about 586 to 516, plus or minus a couple years.
There was a common thread among those last 8, the ones who differed from the usual 609/605 start and a 539 end. It was a rejection of the authority of the Bible. They often interpreted the 70 years as a prophecy that might not have even come from Jeremiah or the Chronicler, but which was supposedly imposed on the text from a much later date. Funny how those few exceptions you count on the most to promote uncertainty and doubt, actually got to those interpretations by rejecting the originality and authority of the Biblical text.
 

If WTJWorg looks for parallel interpretation and making claim how "the dream" is illustration for God's Kingdom, than GB need to face the fact that they are actually claiming that God went mad at one point and was left without power over the Earth.
Cameron: That’s all right. The Bible shows that Nebuchadnezzar lost his sanity, evidently for seven years. During that time, he was unable to rule as king. But at the end of the seven times, Nebuchadnezzar regained his sanity and started ruling again. *
Jon: OK, I’m with you so far. But what does all of this have to do with God’s Kingdom and the year 1914?
Cameron: In a nutshell, this prophecy has two fulfillments. The first fulfillment happened when King Nebuchadnezzar’s rulership was interrupted. The second fulfillment involved an interruption of God’s rulership. So it is this second fulfillment that is related to God’s Kingdom.
Nebuchadnezzar = JHVH 
JHVH Kingdom stopped to be (World's) Ultimate Power in 607 BCE, because of .....,  caused by...., lets read how Cameron explained this: 
Cameron: In Bible times, the Israelite kings who ruled in Jerusalem were said to sit on “Jehovah’s throne.” * They represented God in governing his people. So the rulership of those kings  was really an expression of God’s rulership. In time, however, most of those kings became disobedient to God and most of their subjects followed suit. Because of the Israelites’ disobedience, God allowed them to be conquered by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E. From that time on, no more kings represented Jehovah in Jerusalem. In that sense, then, God’s rulership was interrupted. Are you with me so far?
Kings in Jerusalem = JHVH, But they were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar = JHVH.
Disobedient Kings, Jerusalem = Disobedient JHVH conquered by Mad Nebuchadnezzar = Mad JHVH.
Are you still with Cameron so far? :))
Another thing is for massive consideration. If by any chance JHVH lost his power over Earth in 607 BCE than he also lost his power over Heaven too, because of same reason, and that is his "madness", what ever that could be.
If, by WTJWorg interpretations, JHVH regained his Power in 1914 CE, than question is; Who gave to Jesus Whole Power on Heaven and Earth in 33 CE ??? 
 

OK. It's 2021 now, I will move on to the second part of your answer, which is even more incorrect.
I asked:
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
You answered:
JSTOR gives me a couple of references that show you are wrong. The first is : https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1371.2018.222705
The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile Author(s): Steven M. Bryan Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 137, No. 1 (Spring 2018), pp. 107-126
I quote from page 108, where Bryan shows no problem with the following date for the destruction of Jerusalem:
". . . the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/86" (p.108)
He is also aware that some scholars have made a point about the 70 year period from the (second exile and) destruction of the temple by Babylon (587/6) to the reconstruction in 516/515 since this also is a 70-year period (which he does not accept as the period referenced by Jeremiah, which he says had already been recognized as fulfilled.) [Note that C.F.Whitley, another example from Niles' "Appendix C" is a proponent of 586 BCE to 516 BCE, with full knowledge that 586 BCE refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and 516 to the reconstruction under Haggai/Zerubbabel.]
So your reference to Steven M Bryan is a failure.
Now to Rainer Albertz. Without looking, I have already come to trust that this was also just an empty claim.
So, here it is. Not surprisingly, you failed at this one too. Here is his chronology from the book:
Israel in Exile --The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. by Rainer Albertz · 2003

Note: "conquest of Jerusalem, 2d deportation (July / August 587)." He sees that the Bible chronology fits the standard archaeological foundation for the chronology. These dates are also 20 years off from the ones promoted by the Watchtower publications.
Of course, I'm sure you already knew both of these attempts were failures before you even provided them.

Niles, himself gives an overview of many past scholars, and he is not confused at all by the scholarship. First, of course, here are the dates he accepts, as seen in Appendix C. This applies to the second question, of course, as he is also an "Exilic" scholar, too. He apparently understands exactly how the standard dates align with the Bible chronology.

Now you mentioned Appendix A, where Nles gives an idea of the broad range of views from scholars and Bible commentators, past and present. I don't see any of them confused about the chronology of those 70 years of Babylonian domination between about 609 to 539 (plus or minus a couple of years). Most of them chose that very chronology as the interpretation of Jeremiah's 70 years. Apparently every single one of them understood that chronology to be able to place the destruction of Jerusalem in 587-586 BCE, or the larger exile (e.g. Ezekiel, et al) from 598-597 BCE. Everyone has a right to their set of Biblical interpretations for the varying uses of the term "70 years" whether literal, close, symbolic, an approximation, or even believing (as Niles himself does) that various Bible writers may have used it to refer to multiple periods. But this does not imply any confusion about the chronology.
Every one of them understood the chronology of the time of Babylonian domination, or they could not have all consistently put dates like the ones pictured above, on all the Judean events. I will repeat again: Apparently 100% of them used the date 587 or 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem. No confusion about the chronology, just different interpretations of which start and end dates to use within that fixed chronology. For those who don't know, I'll reproduce the columns from the first 3 pages:



Did I mention this? Every one of the above accepts a chronology within a couple years of the standard chronology, and every one of the above accepts a chronology that is about 20 years different from the "special chronology" that the WTS promotes.
(I add that last part about the 20-years difference, because there are people who think that 605 BCE, above, is only 2 years different from the WTS chronology of 607. It's actually 18 years different. Because the WTS publications present the above 605 date as 625 BCE.)
The last 8 listed scholars from the final two pages (not included above) discuss variations of Biblical interpretation about the 70 years, but they are not at all confused about the chronology of the period of Babylonian years of domination in the region. I'll just pick any one of them to see what they say about the period of Babylonian domination:
The first one, Anneli Aejmelaeus, we don't have to look up, because Niles already tells us she understands the significance of 587 BCE (Jeremiah 25) and 597 BCE.
So I'll pick another and then look up whether Bryan and Albertz fit the criteria of dating the destruction of Jerusalem more than two years different than 587 BCE.
Maybe next year, though. This should be my last post of 2020.
 

OK. It's 2021 now, I will move on to the second part of your answer, which is even more incorrect.
I asked:
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
You answered:
JSTOR gives me a couple of references that show you are wrong. The first is : https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1371.2018.222705
The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile Author(s): Steven M. Bryan Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 137, No. 1 (Spring 2018), pp. 107-126
I quote from page 108, where Bryan shows no problem with the following date for the destruction of Jerusalem:
". . . the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/86" (p.108)
He is also aware that some scholars have made a point about the 70 year period from the (second exile and) destruction of the temple by Babylon (587/6) to the reconstruction in 516/515 since this also is a 70-year period (which he does not accept as the period referenced by Jeremiah, which he says had already been recognized as fulfilled.) [Note that C.F.Whitley, another example from Niles' "Appendix C" is a proponent of 586 BCE to 516 BCE, with full knowledge that 586 BCE refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and 516 to the reconstruction under Haggai/Zerubbabel.]
So your reference to Steven M Bryan is a failure.
Now to Rainer Albertz. Without looking, I have already come to trust that this was also just an empty claim.
So, here it is. Not surprisingly, you failed at this one too. Here is his chronology from the book:
Israel in Exile --The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. by Rainer Albertz · 2003

Note: "conquest of Jerusalem, 2d deportation (July / August 587)." He sees that the Bible chronology fits the standard archaeological foundation for the chronology. These dates are also 20 years off from the ones promoted by the Watchtower publications.
Of course, I'm sure you already knew both of these attempts were failures before you even provided them.

Niles, himself gives an overview of many past scholars, and he is not confused at all by the scholarship. First, of course, here are the dates he accepts, as seen in Appendix C. This applies to the second question, of course, as he is also an "Exilic" scholar, too. He apparently understands exactly how the standard dates align with the Bible chronology.

Now you mentioned Appendix A, where Nles gives an idea of the broad range of views from scholars and Bible commentators, past and present. I don't see any of them confused about the chronology of those 70 years of Babylonian domination between about 609 to 539 (plus or minus a couple of years). Most of them chose that very chronology as the interpretation of Jeremiah's 70 years. Apparently every single one of them understood that chronology to be able to place the destruction of Jerusalem in 587-586 BCE, or the larger exile (e.g. Ezekiel, et al) from 598-597 BCE. Everyone has a right to their set of Biblical interpretations for the varying uses of the term "70 years" whether literal, close, symbolic, an approximation, or even believing (as Niles himself does) that various Bible writers may have used it to refer to multiple periods. But this does not imply any confusion about the chronology.
Every one of them understood the chronology of the time of Babylonian domination, or they could not have all consistently put dates like the ones pictured above, on all the Judean events. I will repeat again: Apparently 100% of them used the date 587 or 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem. No confusion about the chronology, just different interpretations of which start and end dates to use within that fixed chronology. For those who don't know, I'll reproduce the columns from the first 3 pages:



Did I mention this? Every one of the above accepts a chronology within a couple years of the standard chronology, and every one of the above accepts a chronology that is about 20 years different from the "special chronology" that the WTS promotes.
(I add that last part about the 20-years difference, because there are people who think that 605 BCE, above, is only 2 years different from the WTS chronology of 607. It's actually 18 years different. Because the WTS publications present the above 605 date as 625 BCE.)
The last 8 listed scholars from the final two pages (not included above) discuss variations of Biblical interpretation about the 70 years, but they are not at all confused about the chronology of the period of Babylonian years of domination in the region. I'll just pick any one of them to see what they say about the period of Babylonian domination:
The first one, Anneli Aejmelaeus, we don't have to look up, because Niles already tells us she understands the significance of 587 BCE (Jeremiah 25) and 597 BCE.
So I'll pick another and then look up whether Bryan and Albertz fit the criteria of dating the destruction of Jerusalem more than two years different than 587 BCE.
Maybe next year, though. This should be my last post of 2020.
 

OK. It's 2021 now, I will move on to the second part of your answer, which is even more incorrect.
I asked:
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
You answered:
JSTOR gives me a couple of references that show you are wrong. The first is : https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1371.2018.222705
The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile Author(s): Steven M. Bryan Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 137, No. 1 (Spring 2018), pp. 107-126
I quote from page 108, where Bryan shows no problem with the following date for the destruction of Jerusalem:
". . . the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/86" (p.108)
He is also aware that some scholars have made a point about the 70 year period from the (second exile and) destruction of the temple by Babylon (587/6) to the reconstruction in 516/515 since this also is a 70-year period (which he does not accept as the period referenced by Jeremiah, which he says had already been recognized as fulfilled.) [Note that C.F.Whitley, another example from Niles' "Appendix C" is a proponent of 586 BCE to 516 BCE, with full knowledge that 586 BCE refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and 516 to the reconstruction under Haggai/Zerubbabel.]
So your reference to Steven M Bryan is a failure.
Now to Rainer Albertz. Without looking, I have already come to trust that this was also just an empty claim.
So, here it is. Not surprisingly, you failed at this one too. Here is his chronology from the book:
Israel in Exile --The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. by Rainer Albertz · 2003

Note: "conquest of Jerusalem, 2d deportation (July / August 587)." He sees that the Bible chronology fits the standard archaeological foundation for the chronology. These dates are also 20 years off from the ones promoted by the Watchtower publications.
Of course, I'm sure you already knew both of these attempts were failures before you even provided them.

OK. It's 2021 now, I will move on to the second part of your answer, which is even more incorrect.
I asked:
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
You answered:
JSTOR gives me a couple of references that show you are wrong. The first is : https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1371.2018.222705
The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile Author(s): Steven M. Bryan Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 137, No. 1 (Spring 2018), pp. 107-126
I quote from page 108, where Bryan shows no problem with the following date for the destruction of Jerusalem:
". . . the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/86" (p.108)
He is also aware that some scholars have made a point about the 70 year period from the (second exile and) destruction of the temple by Babylon (587/6) to the reconstruction in 516/515 since this also is a 70-year period (which he does not accept as the period referenced by Jeremiah, which he says had already been recognized as fulfilled.) [Note that C.F.Whitley, another example from Niles' "Appendix C" is a proponent of 586 BCE to 516 BCE, with full knowledge that 586 BCE refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and 516 to the reconstruction under Haggai/Zerubbabel.]
So your reference to Steven M Bryan is a failure.
Now to Rainer Albertz. Without looking, I have already come to trust that this was also just an empty claim.
So, here it is. Not surprisingly, you failed at this one too. Here is his chronology from the book:
Israel in Exile --The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. by Rainer Albertz · 2003

Note: "conquest of Jerusalem, 2d deportation (July / August 587)." He sees that the Bible chronology fits the standard archaeological foundation for the chronology. These dates are also 20 years off from the ones promoted by the Watchtower publications.
Of course, I'm sure you already knew both of these attempts were failures before you even provided them.

Niles, himself gives an overview of many past scholars, and he is not confused at all by the scholarship. First, of course, here are the dates he accepts, as seen in Appendix C. This applies to the second question, of course, as he is also an "Exilic" scholar, too. He apparently understands exactly how the standard dates align with the Bible chronology.

Now you mentioned Appendix A, where Nles gives an idea of the broad range of views from scholars and Bible commentators, past and present. I don't see any of them confused about the chronology of those 70 years of Babylonian domination between about 609 to 539 (plus or minus a couple of years). Most of them chose that very chronology as the interpretation of Jeremiah's 70 years. Apparently every single one of them understood that chronology to be able to place the destruction of Jerusalem in 587-586 BCE, or the larger exile (e.g. Ezekiel, et al) from 598-597 BCE. Everyone has a right to their set of Biblical interpretations for the varying uses of the term "70 years" whether literal, close, symbolic, an approximation, or even believing (as Niles himself does) that various Bible writers may have used it to refer to multiple periods. But this does not imply any confusion about the chronology.
Every one of them understood the chronology of the time of Babylonian domination, or they could not have all consistently put dates like the ones pictured above, on all the Judean events. I will repeat again: Apparently 100% of them used the date 587 or 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem. No confusion about the chronology, just different interpretations of which start and end dates to use within that fixed chronology. For those who don't know, I'll reproduce the columns from the first 3 pages:



Did I mention this? Every one of the above accepts a chronology within a couple years of the standard chronology, and every one of the above accepts a chronology that is about 20 years different from the "special chronology" that the WTS promotes.
(I add that last part about the 20-years difference, because there are people who think that 605 BCE, above, is only 2 years different from the WTS chronology of 607. It's actually 18 years different. Because the WTS publications present the above 605 date as 625 BCE.)
The last 8 listed scholars from the final two pages (not included above) discuss variations of Biblical interpretation about the 70 years, but they are not at all confused about the chronology of the period of Babylonian years of domination in the region. I'll just pick any one of them to see what they say about the period of Babylonian domination:
The first one, Anneli Aejmelaeus, we don't have to look up, because Niles already tells us she understands the significance of 587 BCE (Jeremiah 25) and 597 BCE.
So I'll pick another and then look up whether Bryan and Albertz fit the criteria of dating the destruction of Jerusalem more than two years different than 587 BCE.
Maybe next year, though. This should be my last post of 2020.
 

Someone named RR(?) was selling a book on eBay while making a claim it came from Tom Cabeen, implying it might have been printed on WT materials. I thought it was nearly impossible, having been there from 76 to 82. I got Cabeen's number through contact with his son (who went to college with my son). Cabeen was sure he had never seen the book before.
Anyway, I asked Cabeen if he knew how COJ was doing healthwise. Cabeen didn't know for sure, but told me how sad it was that COJ only tried to do the right thing when one of his Bible Study "RV's" asked him about why the WTS uses this special chronology. COJ was sure it could be defended and did his best, but, of course, discovered what anyone would discover if they were being honest and thorough. I told Cabeen that when I was tagging along with Brother Schroeder's "entourage" for an International Convention tour in 1978 that I had to stay in Athens for some extra time while Bert Schroeder went to Wiesbaden. When I was supposed to catch up with him in Wiesbaden, I was told he had alread gone to Hamburg/Copenhagen/Stockholm for some meetings (no conventions) and without any of his small entourage. The rumor was that this was about the COJ manuscript, although I couldn't know absolutely for sure. We caught up again when he came back to Hamburg then on back to London and Brooklyn. 
I told Cabeen this, and he already knew about part of it. I understand Cabeen might be biased, but he said that Schroeder had already determined to get COJ disfellowshiped several months before that convention trip. So I can believe that something like this happened with Gerard Gertoux. Gertoux seemed willing to discuss anything except 587 BCE, which made him suddenly clam up. 

Niles, himself gives an overview of many past scholars, and he is not confused at all by the scholarship. First, of course, here are the dates he accepts, as seen in Appendix C. This applies to the second question, of course, as he is also an "Exilic" scholar, too. He apparently understands exactly how the standard dates align with the Bible chronology.

Now you mentioned Appendix A, where Nles gives an idea of the broad range of views from scholars and Bible commentators, past and present. I don't see any of them confused about the chronology of those 70 years of Babylonian domination between about 609 to 539 (plus or minus a couple of years). Most of them chose that very chronology as the interpretation of Jeremiah's 70 years. Apparently every single one of them understood that chronology to be able to place the destruction of Jerusalem in 587-586 BCE, or the larger exile (e.g. Ezekiel, et al) from 598-597 BCE. Everyone has a right to their set of Biblical interpretations for the varying uses of the term "70 years" whether literal, close, symbolic, an approximation, or even believing (as Niles himself does) that various Bible writers may have used it to refer to multiple periods. But this does not imply any confusion about the chronology.
Every one of them understood the chronology of the time of Babylonian domination, or they could not have all consistently put dates like the ones pictured above, on all the Judean events. I will repeat again: Apparently 100% of them used the date 587 or 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem. No confusion about the chronology, just different interpretations of which start and end dates to use within that fixed chronology. For those who don't know, I'll reproduce the columns from the first 3 pages:



Did I mention this? Every one of the above accepts a chronology within a couple years of the standard chronology, and every one of the above accepts a chronology that is about 20 years different from the "special chronology" that the WTS promotes.
(I add that last part about the 20-years difference, because there are people who think that 605 BCE, above, is only 2 years different from the WTS chronology of 607. It's actually 18 years different. Because the WTS publications present the above 605 date as 625 BCE.)
The last 8 listed scholars from the final two pages (not included above) discuss variations of Biblical interpretation about the 70 years, but they are not at all confused about the chronology of the period of Babylonian years of domination in the region. I'll just pick any one of them to see what they say about the period of Babylonian domination:
The first one, Anneli Aejmelaeus, we don't have to look up, because Niles already tells us she understands the significance of 587 BCE (Jeremiah 25) and 597 BCE.
So I'll pick another and then look up whether Bryan and Albertz fit the criteria of dating the destruction of Jerusalem more than two years different than 587 BCE.
Maybe next year, though. This should be my last post of 2020.
 

Someone named RR(?) was selling a book on eBay while making a claim it came from Tom Cabeen, implying it might have been printed on WT materials. I thought it was nearly impossible, having been there from 76 to 82. I got Cabeen's number through contact with his son (who went to college with my son). Cabeen was sure he had never seen the book before.
Anyway, I asked Cabeen if he knew how COJ was doing healthwise. Cabeen didn't know for sure, but told me how sad it was that COJ only tried to do the right thing when one of his Bible Study "RV's" asked him about why the WTS uses this special chronology. COJ was sure it could be defended and did his best, but, of course, discovered what anyone would discover if they were being honest and thorough. I told Cabeen that when I was tagging along with Brother Schroeder's "entourage" for an International Convention tour in 1978 that I had to stay in Athens for some extra time while Bert Schroeder went to Wiesbaden. When I was supposed to catch up with him in Wiesbaden, I was told he had alread gone to Hamburg/Copenhagen/Stockholm for some meetings (no conventions) and without any of his small entourage. The rumor was that this was about the COJ manuscript, although I couldn't know absolutely for sure. We caught up again when he came back to Hamburg then on back to London and Brooklyn. 
I told Cabeen this, and he already knew about part of it. I understand Cabeen might be biased, but he said that Schroeder had already determined to get COJ disfellowshiped several months before that convention trip. So I can believe that something like this happened with Gerard Gertoux. Gertoux seemed willing to discuss anything except 587 BCE, which made him suddenly clam up. 

I'll look for an older post. I think it was in another topic, but I recall AlanF seemed to have brought this up out of nowhere somewhere else recently. If that's older than yours, the problem is resolved. AlanF deserves this one anyway. I don't think he can go 20 posts without changing to one of these subjects, even if it's just as simple/banal as: "You're as moronic as a flat earth creationist."
[Edited to add: Looks like your off the hook. Arauna appears to have the oldest post here, but I'll still be on the lookout for one from AlanF that pins this whole offshoot on him.]

Someone named RR(?) was selling a book on eBay while making a claim it came from Tom Cabeen, implying it might have been printed on WT materials. I thought it was nearly impossible, having been there from 76 to 82. I got Cabeen's number through contact with his son (who went to college with my son). Cabeen was sure he had never seen the book before.
Anyway, I asked Cabeen if he knew how COJ was doing healthwise. Cabeen didn't know for sure, but told me how sad it was that COJ only tried to do the right thing when one of his Bible Study "RV's" asked him about why the WTS uses this special chronology. COJ was sure it could be defended and did his best, but, of course, discovered what anyone would discover if they were being honest and thorough. I told Cabeen that when I was tagging along with Brother Schroeder's "entourage" for an International Convention tour in 1978 that I had to stay in Athens for some extra time while Bert Schroeder went to Wiesbaden. When I was supposed to catch up with him in Wiesbaden, I was told he had alread gone to Hamburg/Copenhagen/Stockholm for some meetings (no conventions) and without any of his small entourage. The rumor was that this was about the COJ manuscript, although I couldn't know absolutely for sure. We caught up again when he came back to Hamburg then on back to London and Brooklyn. 
I told Cabeen this, and he already knew about part of it. I understand Cabeen might be biased, but he said that Schroeder had already determined to get COJ disfellowshiped several months before that convention trip. So I can believe that something like this happened with Gerard Gertoux. Gertoux seemed willing to discuss anything except 587 BCE, which made him suddenly clam up. 

Someone named RR(?) was selling a book on eBay while making a claim it came from Tom Cabeen, implying it might have been printed on WT materials. I thought it was nearly impossible, having been there from 76 to 82. I got Cabeen's number through contact with his son (who went to college with my son). Cabeen was sure he had never seen the book before.
Anyway, I asked Cabeen if he knew how COJ was doing healthwise. Cabeen didn't know for sure, but told me how sad it was that COJ only tried to do the right thing when one of his Bible Study "RV's" asked him about why the WTS uses this special chronology. COJ was sure it could be defended and did his best, but, of course, discovered what anyone would discover if they were being honest and thorough. I told Cabeen that when I was tagging along with Brother Schroeder's "entourage" for an International Convention tour in 1978 that I had to stay in Athens for some extra time while Bert Schroeder went to Wiesbaden. When I was supposed to catch up with him in Wiesbaden, I was told he had alread gone to Hamburg/Copenhagen/Stockholm for some meetings (no conventions) and without any of his small entourage. The rumor was that this was about the COJ manuscript, although I couldn't know absolutely for sure. We caught up again when he came back to Hamburg then on back to London and Brooklyn. 
I told Cabeen this, and he already knew about part of it. I understand Cabeen might be biased, but he said that Schroeder had already determined to get COJ disfellowshiped several months before that convention trip. So I can believe that something like this happened with Gerard Gertoux. Gertoux seemed willing to discuss anything except 587 BCE, which made him suddenly clam up. 

I don't believe any true scholars are confused about the 70 years of Babylonian domination. The evidence is too clear and overwhelming to leave any room for such confusion by any true scholar. You apparently think they are confused but that's a reflection on you, not them. You make haughty claims without evidence, but you haven't been able to honestly deal with any of the evidence so far.
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
If you can't, then this is just another empty claim.

CC, You keep dragging me (and @Arauna ) into this. Arauna is right. We should be able to explain complex things with simple words and simple sentences. So here goes:
Ann O'maly commented on a paper written by Gerard Gertoux. In her comments, O'maly happened to make mention of a mistake that might have just been a typo. Gertoux's "typo" indicated that 360/12=15, instead of 360/12=30. No big deal. Chavez (CC) sarys Gertoux is right about 15 degrees, and O'maly must be stupid. For evidence CC posts content saying that 360/12=30 and that 360/24=15 and that 30/2=15. CC apparently doesn't realize that all CC has done is prove that O'maly was right. That's the whole story: CC has tried to prove O'maly wrong, but all his evidence directly shows she was right. His evidence blew up in his face. That's the whole story, except that Arauna has sided with the idea that 360/12=15, without even knowing, probably, that this was the entire argument. It's EXACTLY as if:
O'maly said 2+2=4 CC told her she was stupid, because 2+2=5 CC "proves" it by loading up a lot of Googled sites that prove that 2+2=4 CC claims his superiority and O'maly's stupidity, by misreading his evidence that "proved" to him that 2+2=5 Arauna places her bets on the side of 2+2=5 and criticizes O'maly for believing that 2+2=4. But why go to so much trouble to defend a typo in the first place? Why the need to pretend O'maly is stupid and wrong and incompetent just because she caught a simple mistake? That was not even the point of O'maly's comments. 
I think it only goes to prove a more general point we have seen on this thread. Hatred of people interferes with good judgment. And conversely, if people think someone else (like a Furuli, a Gertoux) is on the side of 1914, then it doesn't matter if they are making ludicrous claims. 99.9% of Witnesses apparently aren't really going to test them anyway. It's easier to just say they must be right, and Witnesses should defend them. For people who do not wish to look into the facts, it becomes an 'us versus them' proposition.
But there's another way I can tell that it doesn't matter what the evidence shows, and this is only about assumptions, and not real study or research:
It's because Gerard Gertoux has agreed with  the same date that Carl Olof Jonsson gives for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. I have even communicated with Gerard Gertoux to find out why.
 

CC, You keep dragging me (and @Arauna ) into this. Arauna is right. We should be able to explain complex things with simple words and simple sentences. So here goes:
Ann O'maly commented on a paper written by Gerard Gertoux. In her comments, O'maly happened to make mention of a mistake that might have just been a typo. Gertoux's "typo" indicated that 360/12=15, instead of 360/12=30. No big deal. Chavez (CC) sarys Gertoux is right about 15 degrees, and O'maly must be stupid. For evidence CC posts content saying that 360/12=30 and that 360/24=15 and that 30/2=15. CC apparently doesn't realize that all CC has done is prove that O'maly was right. That's the whole story: CC has tried to prove O'maly wrong, but all his evidence directly shows she was right. His evidence blew up in his face. That's the whole story, except that Arauna has sided with the idea that 360/12=15, without even knowing, probably, that this was the entire argument. It's EXACTLY as if:
O'maly said 2+2=4 CC told her she was stupid, because 2+2=5 CC "proves" it by loading up a lot of Googled sites that prove that 2+2=4 CC claims his superiority and O'maly's stupidity, by misreading his evidence that "proved" to him that 2+2=5 Arauna places her bets on the side of 2+2=5 and criticizes O'maly for believing that 2+2=4. But why go to so much trouble to defend a typo in the first place? Why the need to pretend O'maly is stupid and wrong and incompetent just because she caught a simple mistake? That was not even the point of O'maly's comments. 
I think it only goes to prove a more general point we have seen on this thread. Hatred of people interferes with good judgment. And conversely, if people think someone else (like a Furuli, a Gertoux) is on the side of 1914, then it doesn't matter if they are making ludicrous claims. 99.9% of Witnesses apparently aren't really going to test them anyway. It's easier to just say they must be right, and Witnesses should defend them. For people who do not wish to look into the facts, it becomes an 'us versus them' proposition.
But there's another way I can tell that it doesn't matter what the evidence shows, and this is only about assumptions, and not real study or research:
It's because Gerard Gertoux has agreed with  the same date that Carl Olof Jonsson gives for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. I have even communicated with Gerard Gertoux to find out why.
 

FYI: Your images haven't embedded, @JW Insider

I don't believe any true scholars are confused about the 70 years of Babylonian domination. The evidence is too clear and overwhelming to leave any room for such confusion by any true scholar. You apparently think they are confused but that's a reflection on you, not them. You make haughty claims without evidence, but you haven't been able to honestly deal with any of the evidence so far.
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
If you can't, then this is just another empty claim.

Since this is MY thread—JWI said so, though I’ve barely said a word on it—it’s appropriate for me to say that I don’t do floods—the cost/benefit ratio doesn’t work out.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2009/03/i-dont-do-floods.html

I couldn't delete them either, so I redid them for another post.

Gerard Gertoux would love to side with the Watchtower's chronology wherever possible, and has looked at some of the potentially "weaker" evidence here and there and claimed that there might be room for agreement with the Watchtower's dates.
Although he is a WItness, he has studied the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian chronology and has realized that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar cannot be placed in 607. As you can see here, he puts it in 587 BCE.
https://www.academia.edu/26080694/Absolute_Chronology_of_the_Ancient_World_from_1533_BCE_to_140_CE ...


(The only mistake he makes here is using the "astronomical dating" format to represent "BCE" format. But he acknowledges this. It makes the spreadsheet easier for most people to understand.)