JW Insider

When AlanF, in full evolutionist mode, savaging anyone who ‘refused to learn,’ made a similar statement, I said, “It’s just you and me, you blowhard! plus maybe a half-dozen more. What! Do you think you are Clarence Darrow, arguing Inherit the Wind?’
Quite a mission you’ve chosen for yourself. Are you having success?
’Come here, come here, gather round—so I can tell you why you shouldn’t be here!’
Yeah. Everyone has their own reason for being here. I use the site as a writing workshop and some of what I create here later appears elsewhere in better form. Meanwhile, I rub shoulders, learn, and share, just like you. Notwithstanding some occasional trash-talking, hopefully I am never mean-spirited in doing so.

I wasn't saying AlanF presented as Billy the Kid but, rather, that he identified as Billy the Kid. Isn't that considered real these days?

That's quite an admission. And I'm sure you know that you could be disfellowshipped if you made this same  "unequivocal" statement and stuck to it publicly in your congregation after "counsel" or "reproof."  So I seriously hope you are careful about it, especially as you earlier mentioned that you hope to have your theory published someday. 
 Actually, you have found evidence that Jerusalem met it's fall in 597 not it's end, not its destruction that the Bible says came about 10 years later. You haven't proven the Bible wrong yet. Those Babylonian Chronicles mention that Nebuchadnezzar went up against Jerusalem in his 8th year. So if you say his 8th year was 597, where does that put his 18th year, 10 years later. Sounds like 597 minus 10 is 587 is what you are saying his 18th year was. Unless you are manipulating something for other purposes. 
*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, . . . at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon

 

I think you are forgetting that a specific, identifiable lunar and/or planetary configuration that happened in a specific year in history actually is a historical fact relevant for that period and region. It's an event.

That is such an understatement. Problem is, there is so much to learn and we are so puny in the universe my fear is we're not sufficiently intelligent to learn what there is to know.

Not me. I think it can be useful for some people and sometimes can even be funny. It's often entertaining, and it can have serious uses, too. It can be revealing in interesting ways related to psychology and human interaction. I think the world and Witnesses too need to be ready for an onslaught of fake people, fake news, fake information, and no one will have the time to figure out who's really who online, or even on the news. People can scrub their own accounts and try to start fresh (like a certain NYT's "journalist" who was just outed as a propagandist for Israeli intelligence). I don't like Nikki Haley's "true ID" proposal because people use identities as protection from harassment, political persecution, religious persecution, or even from being shunned by loved ones in their local congregation over the things they are learning. 
Sock puppets don't bother me. I personally don't want to use one. But there are times when their use can be informative. I've seen you use one in a good way, even very recently, to raise a question, and make an informative comment, and sometimes that keeps a conversation going for a good purpose. It's only when people under any of their names are being obnoxious, divisive, causing dissension, being nasty, etc., that I have a problem. Also, there are some people here who don't respond well to a string of downvotes at everything they say. And there are some who use their sock puppets for no other reason than to build up their reputation with upvotes, which doesn't hurt anyone. But I don't like to see a person get discouraged or offended at constant downvotes so I will sometimes "out" a person for doing that because then they will know it's ONLY this or that person, and it's not a "real" response.
Here's an example that could feel offensive to @Arauna:

Notice that I said nothing controversial, and added that I hoped Arauna would say something to us about how she is doing these days since we hadn't heard from her in a while. But you downvoted it. Is she going to think that some new person doesn't like her and doesn't want to know how she is doing? In the past another one of your identities told her multiple times that she was foolish for disagreeing with you. She got used to that from you. So if she knows it's just you again, she won't be overly concerned. 

That's quite an admission. And I'm sure you know that you could be disfellowshipped if you made this same  "unequivocal" statement and stuck to it publicly in your congregation after "counsel" or "reproof."  So I seriously hope you are careful about it, especially as you earlier mentioned that you hope to have your theory published someday. 
 Actually, you have found evidence that Jerusalem met it's fall in 597 not it's end, not its destruction that the Bible says came about 10 years later. You haven't proven the Bible wrong yet. Those Babylonian Chronicles mention that Nebuchadnezzar went up against Jerusalem in his 8th year. So if you say his 8th year was 597, where does that put his 18th year, 10 years later. Sounds like 597 minus 10 is 587 is what you are saying his 18th year was. Unless you are manipulating something for other purposes. 
*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, . . . at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon

 

I'm not really that interested in whatever historical soap opera of this forum. Every social platform (including real life in-person platforms) has their share of drama, not to mention foibles we learn of individuals (including our own) along the way. Just rubbing elbows in any forum where I can learn and share is the more important thing to me.

No, he was not Billy The Kid. BTK was "Wally McNasty" as Pudgy called him. He is also George88, Cesar Chavez, Allen Smith, Alphonse, BTK59 [BillyTheKid59], Moise Racette, Dmitar, Boyle, etc, etc. I used to keep track, but I stopped at around 50 names. 
AlanF never used but that one handle here and evidently in several other forums around the Internet. And he would identify himself with his full name (if you asked) and not just hide behind the handle like some of us. LOL. I never followed him much into those topics about the Flood, the Ice Ages, Evolution, etc., because I'm pretty incompetent about those things and don't care to learn too much just yet about them. Maybe next year.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "his good posts." But I looked back through some chronology topics and found dozens of well written polite posts that merely shared information, and all the while he was getting called names by others here. There was some light-hearted bantering between him and scholarJW  as they had obviously had a long history of previous discussions elsewhere. But I see a lot of obnoxious posts to him before he responded. 
But I will start out with one of his absolute worst, because I thought that TTH's response was about the funniest and most memorable retort:
But that was after he had developed a kind of persona where he had developed a HISTORY with Cesar, and Arauna and TTH, and we already expected that these were just follow-ups from prior topics. But I go to his old topics in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and he was actually quite helpful in providing sources and resources for information. But a topic couldn't go for 10 pages before he started fighting back.
I do see one thing in his favor, in my opinion. Those attacking him were often just offering empty opposition and ignoring his points, or offering "tired" old standby arguments from Young Earth Creationists which he considered totally debunked scientifically. Even though he wasn't attacked with foul language, he was attacked with constant escalating levels of antagonism, and ad hominem stuff. But in the middle of his rather-too-direct responses to those, whenever someone asked a reasonable question, he was right back to giving emotionless straightforward facts to think about. These are the same facts we should be aware of as counter-arguments to, let's say, the Flood, should it ever come up. In the middle of all this bantering, notice how he goes right back to being an encyclopedic resource, even though we don't like the info. Here:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/?do=findComment&comment=153844
It's too long to display the contents here, but his follow-up comment is also thought-provoking and I'll quote it in full:
That's not faith-building, of course. And it's not stuff I personally want to think about. But it's thought-provoking information and the kind of thing that's useful in a discussion forum, especially if others know how to respond and defend against it (especially the informative post above it with only the link).
 

I'm trying to see your perspective here, and it made me go back and look through the threads that I remembered him in pretty well. I was surprised to notice that in the worst-case posts I had recalled, that he wasn't the one who started it. Others were being nasty, and calling him a "fool" before he responded in kind, but he was less apt to watch his vocabulary even if others were escalating. I also noticed that he was adamant that someone should try to respond to his point rather than constantly dodging and weaving and diverting. 
But I recall once seeing him refer to Arauna as foolish in a chronology topic, and either Tom or I let him know he was picking on "sweet old lady." (Sorry if that offends, Arauna.) He responded that it didn't matter how old anyone is, if they is going to spout nonsense with such conviction, then age is no excuse; she is going to hear where she is wrong. 
It's true that it's easier to ignore empathy and emotion in an online discussion if you are just here to defend your [strong] opinions against the [strong] opinions of others. I know a couple of people who are brilliant intellectually, but who are "on the [autism] spectrum" and have that exact trouble in real life, and they are always getting in trouble with others. I counseled one who has problems at work because he does OK with others in a meeting format, and one-on-one, but he writes scathing emails, and raises his voice with co-workers on the phone. I had also noticed that at meetings he did better when he looked at people's faces when disagreeing with them. I told him about this, as a way to help, but he said he grew up with "Asperger's" and would never look at a person's face when he talked to them. 
As a moderator I remember having to warn Alan a couple of times and sent that warning up the flagpole to the admins:

But who's counting? LOL
Unlike others who got warnings (who would dig in their heels and get suspended), AlanF would respond humbly and contritely and explain himself without making excuses.
 

That's correct, and you also have things going on in China and Europe at the time. Therefore the events have nothing to do with the fact that this and ALL OTHER astronomical diaries and observations from his time point to 568 as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is the same thing as pointing to 587 as the 18th year, and 586 as the 19th year. It absolutely does not matter what events were going on at the same time. You are right that they have no value for the year stipulated by the tablets.
Interestinig isn't it? This has come up before in old topics, that Jeremiah may have meant the expression "70 years" in much the same way as it looks like Isaiah used it. "The typical or "fated" lifespan of a kingdom" like that of Babylon. As if it were already a cliche about Assyria, and the "lifespan" of a kingdom rarely went beyond a dynasty of say, father/son/grandson before a new dynasty would begin. It may not have been literal, a literal, exact 70 years, but just used a way of reminding people that empires and dynasties come and go, and Jehovah will use that same lifespan cycle, of the rise and fall of empires, to both punish and then release his people. In that sense Babylon's "70 years" becomes Judah's "70 years" of reversal. Not that either one needs to be exact or even needs to coincide. The "70 years" given to one is the cause of the "70 years" of the other. 
I personally don't buy it, though, because it's so obvious that the fall of the Assyrian Empire was most apparent 70 years before the fall of Babylon was most apparent. From 609 to 539 is a much better theory than 587 to 517 for the "flip side" of the 70 years for the Temple. I think you have implied that the Temple might have actually been effectively destroyed in 597 or at least at the Babylonian Chronicle's event associated with 597. It makes for an interesting "compromise" only 10 years off the WTS date, and 10 years off the evidence from all the astronomy dating for NEB II.
You said that wrong. Accession year is used so that his 37th regnal year IS also 568 and not 567, according to the way Babylonians were required to count. If you had used a different method of counting regnal years (NON-Accession year counting) then the 37th year would be one year EARLIER not later, because his accession year (the zero-th year) would have already counted as his 1st, therefore his Babylonian counted 10th would be counted in NON-Accession as his 9th. And his 37th would be counted as his 36th. The year earlier was 569 BCE, not 567 BCE. But G88, BTK59, etc., never admit error.
He didn't say it was destroyed in 597, though, did he? He said it fell. Just like Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539. It wasn't destroyed then. For most cities, it wasn't worth destroying if they could still be forced to pay tribute, keep the fields planted, keep the vineyards dressed, etc. There is more wealth to transfer to a king when you DON'T destroy the city but take away their elites who keep most of the trading profits from the "people of the land," and replace those elites with soldiers who are required to take most of those same profits back to their king. 
Also, note that the Bible said it took him about a year and a half of siege to take Jerusalem and finally break through its walls. If you notice the wording carefully in Jeremiah, it appears that most of the ones exiled in 597 were apparently NOT from Jerusalem itself. That happened in year 18/19.
(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile:
in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.
 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.
In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
As you also indicated elsewhere above: the opposite is true. You need to work with the dates by their face value, and not try to disprove them just because you assume certain events must have happened elsewhere at a different time. I can say I was 60 in in 2017 and that I saw a total solar eclipse in NYC, but you can't say I wasn't just because you claim that I should have been 60 during the Viet Nam war, or that there was another total solar eclipse in 1925, so THAT must have been my 60th year. The desired event has nothing to do with the date. My birth certificate doesn't change for any events, my driver's license doesn't change for any events, my passport doesn't change for any events. 

That's correct, and you also have things going on in China and Europe at the time. Therefore the events have nothing to do with the fact that this and ALL OTHER astronomical diaries and observations from his time point to 568 as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is the same thing as pointing to 587 as the 18th year, and 586 as the 19th year. It absolutely does not matter what events were going on at the same time. You are right that they have no value for the year stipulated by the tablets.
Interestinig isn't it? This has come up before in old topics, that Jeremiah may have meant the expression "70 years" in much the same way as it looks like Isaiah used it. "The typical or "fated" lifespan of a kingdom" like that of Babylon. As if it were already a cliche about Assyria, and the "lifespan" of a kingdom rarely went beyond a dynasty of say, father/son/grandson before a new dynasty would begin. It may not have been literal, a literal, exact 70 years, but just used a way of reminding people that empires and dynasties come and go, and Jehovah will use that same lifespan cycle, of the rise and fall of empires, to both punish and then release his people. In that sense Babylon's "70 years" becomes Judah's "70 years" of reversal. Not that either one needs to be exact or even needs to coincide. The "70 years" given to one is the cause of the "70 years" of the other. 
I personally don't buy it, though, because it's so obvious that the fall of the Assyrian Empire was most apparent 70 years before the fall of Babylon was most apparent. From 609 to 539 is a much better theory than 587 to 517 for the "flip side" of the 70 years for the Temple. I think you have implied that the Temple might have actually been effectively destroyed in 597 or at least at the Babylonian Chronicle's event associated with 597. It makes for an interesting "compromise" only 10 years off the WTS date, and 10 years off the evidence from all the astronomy dating for NEB II.
You said that wrong. Accession year is used so that his 37th regnal year IS also 568 and not 567, according to the way Babylonians were required to count. If you had used a different method of counting regnal years (NON-Accession year counting) then the 37th year would be one year EARLIER not later, because his accession year (the zero-th year) would have already counted as his 1st, therefore his Babylonian counted 10th would be counted in NON-Accession as his 9th. And his 37th would be counted as his 36th. The year earlier was 569 BCE, not 567 BCE. But G88, BTK59, etc., never admit error.
He didn't say it was destroyed in 597, though, did he? He said it fell. Just like Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539. It wasn't destroyed then. For most cities, it wasn't worth destroying if they could still be forced to pay tribute, keep the fields planted, keep the vineyards dressed, etc. There is more wealth to transfer to a king when you DON'T destroy the city but take away their elites who keep most of the trading profits from the "people of the land," and replace those elites with soldiers who are required to take most of those same profits back to their king. 
Also, note that the Bible said it took him about a year and a half of siege to take Jerusalem and finally break through its walls. If you notice the wording carefully in Jeremiah, it appears that most of the ones exiled in 597 were apparently NOT from Jerusalem itself. That happened in year 18/19.
(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile:
in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.
 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.
In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
As you also indicated elsewhere above: the opposite is true. You need to work with the dates by their face value, and not try to disprove them just because you assume certain events must have happened elsewhere at a different time. I can say I was 60 in in 2017 and that I saw a total solar eclipse in NYC, but you can't say I wasn't just because you claim that I should have been 60 during the Viet Nam war, or that there was another total solar eclipse in 1925, so THAT must have been my 60th year. The desired event has nothing to do with the date. My birth certificate doesn't change for any events, my driver's license doesn't change for any events, my passport doesn't change for any events. 

That's correct, and you also have things going on in China and Europe at the time. Therefore the events have nothing to do with the fact that this and ALL OTHER astronomical diaries and observations from his time point to 568 as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is the same thing as pointing to 587 as the 18th year, and 586 as the 19th year. It absolutely does not matter what events were going on at the same time. You are right that they have no value for the year stipulated by the tablets.
Interestinig isn't it? This has come up before in old topics, that Jeremiah may have meant the expression "70 years" in much the same way as it looks like Isaiah used it. "The typical or "fated" lifespan of a kingdom" like that of Babylon. As if it were already a cliche about Assyria, and the "lifespan" of a kingdom rarely went beyond a dynasty of say, father/son/grandson before a new dynasty would begin. It may not have been literal, a literal, exact 70 years, but just used a way of reminding people that empires and dynasties come and go, and Jehovah will use that same lifespan cycle, of the rise and fall of empires, to both punish and then release his people. In that sense Babylon's "70 years" becomes Judah's "70 years" of reversal. Not that either one needs to be exact or even needs to coincide. The "70 years" given to one is the cause of the "70 years" of the other. 
I personally don't buy it, though, because it's so obvious that the fall of the Assyrian Empire was most apparent 70 years before the fall of Babylon was most apparent. From 609 to 539 is a much better theory than 587 to 517 for the "flip side" of the 70 years for the Temple. I think you have implied that the Temple might have actually been effectively destroyed in 597 or at least at the Babylonian Chronicle's event associated with 597. It makes for an interesting "compromise" only 10 years off the WTS date, and 10 years off the evidence from all the astronomy dating for NEB II.
You said that wrong. Accession year is used so that his 37th regnal year IS also 568 and not 567, according to the way Babylonians were required to count. If you had used a different method of counting regnal years (NON-Accession year counting) then the 37th year would be one year EARLIER not later, because his accession year (the zero-th year) would have already counted as his 1st, therefore his Babylonian counted 10th would be counted in NON-Accession as his 9th. And his 37th would be counted as his 36th. The year earlier was 569 BCE, not 567 BCE. But G88, BTK59, etc., never admit error.
He didn't say it was destroyed in 597, though, did he? He said it fell. Just like Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539. It wasn't destroyed then. For most cities, it wasn't worth destroying if they could still be forced to pay tribute, keep the fields planted, keep the vineyards dressed, etc. There is more wealth to transfer to a king when you DON'T destroy the city but take away their elites who keep most of the trading profits from the "people of the land," and replace those elites with soldiers who are required to take most of those same profits back to their king. 
Also, note that the Bible said it took him about a year and a half of siege to take Jerusalem and finally break through its walls. If you notice the wording carefully in Jeremiah, it appears that most of the ones exiled in 597 were apparently NOT from Jerusalem itself. That happened in year 18/19.
(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile:
in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.
 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.
In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
As you also indicated elsewhere above: the opposite is true. You need to work with the dates by their face value, and not try to disprove them just because you assume certain events must have happened elsewhere at a different time. I can say I was 60 in in 2017 and that I saw a total solar eclipse in NYC, but you can't say I wasn't just because you claim that I should have been 60 during the Viet Nam war, or that there was another total solar eclipse in 1925, so THAT must have been my 60th year. The desired event has nothing to do with the date. My birth certificate doesn't change for any events, my driver's license doesn't change for any events, my passport doesn't change for any events. 

Over time, I have used 4 different ones that calculate ancient readings. Some are on old broken laptops and I didn't bother to update because it looked like I would have to buy new versions for my current laptop. The only ones I used for Babylonian and Persian readings that I posted here were from Stellarium and The Sky 5 (maybe 6, too). I never paid attention to the ones Hunger and Steele were using. Apparently, they all give the same results within seconds or maybe a minute of each other. But it takes 4 full minutes for the "night sky" to turn even one degree, so they are all giving the same reading.

A high academic standard, yes. He graduated from MIT. But he left a trail of insults on this forum that would make a sailor blush. And that was mostly in response to foolish goading from @scholar JWand back and forth escalations of insults between him and [username="César Chávez"], it's not like people were generally cursing at him and he was just responding in kind. 
"César Chávez" is still with us here by the way, under different user names. (For those who care, that apparently also includes the JW Closed Club, so far just as an auditor, not a participant.)

AlanF commented quite often on this forum when he was alive. He and @scholar JW had a history going back for many years —decades—according to scholar JW. Same with Ann O’maly whom scholar JW also appeared to have communicated with for many past years. 
I hated AlanF’s position on evolution and complete dismissal of much of Genesis but I appreciated that both he and Ann O’maly were much more knowledgeable about neo-Babylonian chronology that I am. By a long shot. They both corrected me publicly with good evidence on several mistakes I made here while learning the topic. I always appreciate corrections by anyone, even a "public reproof." 

AlanF commented quite often on this forum when he was alive. He and @scholar JW had a history going back for many years —decades—according to scholar JW. Same with Ann O’maly whom scholar JW also appeared to have communicated with for many past years. 
I hated AlanF’s position on evolution and complete dismissal of much of Genesis but I appreciated that both he and Ann O’maly were much more knowledgeable about neo-Babylonian chronology that I am. By a long shot. They both corrected me publicly with good evidence on several mistakes I made here while learning the topic. I always appreciate corrections by anyone, even a "public reproof." 

FYI, I have moved some of the posts about AlanF and the ensuing discussion about errors, behavior, forgiveness, prodigality, etc., over to a new topic: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90947-forum-participants-we-have-known/
I believe that, so far, this move only affected some posts by @BTK59, @Many Miles, @TrueTomHarley, and @Srecko Sostar
 
 

It's fairly small (164k) so I'll just post it here:
text-observation-mars-steele.pdf

That would mean that they counted Nabopolassar's years differently from all the other Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian and Persian kings in Ptolemy's writings and in the original Babylonian inscriptions. Anything's possible. But you appear to be more concerned with whether this Nabopolassar was co-reigning with a different Nebuchadnezzar than the one who claimed he was Nabopolassar's son.
I'm only talking about the mistake the writer made in 1969 in presenting the idea that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse. 

It's pretty simple.
Ptolemy said that the Babylonians reported an eclipse that was only PARTIAL in the 5th year of Nabopolassar.  Today, that exactly described PARTIAL eclipse can be calculated to 621 BCE.  That makes perfect consistent sense because it meshes perfectly with 100 other astronomical observations that would also indicate that 621 BCE is the 5th year of Nabopolassar. But the Watchtower claims that 621 BCE is the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, so the WTS needs this eclipse to have happened in 641 BCE, otherwise 1914 doesn't work. So a Watchtower contributor or writer looks at the eclipse log for 641 BCE, and lo and behold there was a total eclipse that year.  So the Watchtower writer/editor says: Look Ptolemy and Babylon say that a partial eclipse happened in 621, but we found an eclipse that doesn't match that description in 641. Even though it doesn't match, we'll go with it, and say it's even BETTER than the right one that matches, because the 641 eclipse is TOTAL not partial. It's the same as if this happened, not that it ever would:
BTK59 says, I found a report with a map of a burial mound of Cherokee Native Americans in Dahlonega, Georgia, USA containing tiny "Indian arrowheads" of the exact shape that the Cherokees made. I wondered if the map was accurate and if I could find one of those tiny arrowheads. And look, it worked, I just found this Cherokee-style arrowhead exactly where the map pointed.  JWI says, Wait, No. I just found a large flint spearhead in burial mound of Osage Native Americans in Joplin Missouri. This must be what you were really looking for, because it was found in a burial mound just like you said. Now BTK59 has two options here. He could say: BTK59 says: JWI, you are a despicable fool. The map said the tiny arrowheads were in Georgia, and that's where I found an arrowhead exactly matching the description. And now you bring me a large spearhead from hundreds of miles off the map. And you say it's the same just because they were both in burial mounds. Or, BTK59 could say: "I see no conflict with this observation, JWI." 

It's pretty simple.
Ptolemy said that the Babylonians reported an eclipse that was only PARTIAL in the 5th year of Nabopolassar.  Today, that exactly described PARTIAL eclipse can be calculated to 621 BCE.  That makes perfect consistent sense because it meshes perfectly with 100 other astronomical observations that would also indicate that 621 BCE is the 5th year of Nabopolassar. But the Watchtower claims that 621 BCE is the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, so the WTS needs this eclipse to have happened in 641 BCE, otherwise 1914 doesn't work. So a Watchtower contributor or writer looks at the eclipse log for 641 BCE, and lo and behold there was a total eclipse that year.  So the Watchtower writer/editor says: Look Ptolemy and Babylon say that a partial eclipse happened in 621, but we found an eclipse that doesn't match that description in 641. Even though it doesn't match, we'll go with it, and say it's even BETTER than the right one that matches, because the 641 eclipse is TOTAL not partial. It's the same as if this happened, not that it ever would:
BTK59 says, I found a report with a map of a burial mound of Cherokee Native Americans in Dahlonega, Georgia, USA containing tiny "Indian arrowheads" of the exact shape that the Cherokees made. I wondered if the map was accurate and if I could find one of those tiny arrowheads. And look, it worked, I just found this Cherokee-style arrowhead exactly where the map pointed.  JWI says, Wait, No. I just found a large flint spearhead in burial mound of Osage Native Americans in Joplin Missouri. This must be what you were really looking for, because it was found in a burial mound just like you said. Now BTK59 has two options here. He could say: BTK59 says: JWI, you are a despicable fool. The map said the tiny arrowheads were in Georgia, and that's where I found an arrowhead exactly matching the description. And now you bring me a large spearhead from hundreds of miles off the map. And you say it's the same just because they were both in burial mounds. Or, BTK59 could say: "I see no conflict with this observation, JWI." 

@xero,
It might have been an innocent set of mistakes after mistakes after mistakes by Furuli, who may have been a bit myopic and started out with extreme confirmation bias, believing that the 588 date MUST be right at all costs for the 37th year. After all, this was the same method the Watchtower (above) had suggested in 1969, so it MUST be true. But it still comes across as a "pious fraud." 
But even more serious, I think, than the potential "pious fraud" unquestionably accepted from Furuli, is the method the Watchtower itself used to hide a very important fact. The hidden fact is directly related to the admission that the tablet contains more PLANETARY observations than LUNAR observations. Why are they just barely mentioned and overlooked?
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
In addition to the aforementioned eclipse, there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. These describe the position of the moon or planets in relation to certain stars or constellations. There are also eight time intervals between the risings and settings of the sun and the moon.
Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956.
Really? This last sentence was completely misworded. It should have said the very opposite:
Because lunar positions are more flexible, and more likely to repeat, even coincidentally and sometimes PREDICTABLY from one year to the next and planetary positions often never repeat again for hundreds of years, this would mean that close matches for the planetary observations would therefore be much more important for determining the BCE dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.
Instead we see some sleight of hand here about supposedly superior reliability. When it should have said "inferior reliability" or "superior flexibility." 
But here's the kicker. Rolf Furuli ADMITS in his book that the planetary positions can ONLY be a match to 568 BCE. (Not his goal of promoting 588.) In other words, it was always a worthless exercise to try to overcome the lunar data when he already had to admit that the greater number of readings were for the far superior and more reliable planetary data that he could not even attempt to dismiss in any reasonable way.

It's not that Jehovah doesn't "watch" errors, but he is all-knowing and all-understanding and has provided the ransom as a means for forgiveness. So he doesn't watch for errors to slap us down like a human boss might, and he doesn't judge by the number of errors.
But there is one exception for humans. We are to watch for errors in "teaching." And since ours is a teaching ministry, even for the youngest among us, we MUST watch for errors when it comes to teaching wrong doctrine and the possibility of misleading others:
(Matthew 16:12) . . .Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of bread, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . . (James 3:1) . . .Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment.  (Galatians 6:1) . . .Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. . . . (Ephesians 4:14, 15) . . .So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. But speaking the truth. . . (Matthew 23:15) . . .Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves. (Hebrews 13:17) . . .Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you. (Matthew 18:6) But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea.
 

The ads promoting 19 didn't mention that it would put elderly heirs on the pavement because of massive tax increases nor did they say the funding came from real estate agents.
repealthedeathtax.com