JW Insider

I consider you and Tom superior to myself and I think he is a fantastic writer…he’s very good at his love of writing,,,,,more importantly he is a very good and trustworthy servant of Jehovah …and he’s humble and even admits he came here and was humbled….and I know him to be very gracious and kind also a little sarcastic at times,( I’m worse )
Forums can make you stronger or humbled and wiser or break you totally….they can also make one sarcastic nasty bombastic bitchy and frustrated …..( I can be guilty of all) but I’ve learnt things and got to  know some who I have affection for,,,and sure hope we meet at some time in that New World tho I think ..and I bet we wouldn’t mention anything that’s been discussed on this forum,,

Actually, he expressed remorse quite clearly on the forum. But from what I understand from you, you have the ability to read hearts and therefore you can judge without being concerned about being judged with the same measure in return. 
You quoted 1 Cor 5:13 which, in context, also says:
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”
I'm sure you can easily guess who 99% of the people on this forum first think of when they hear the word "reviler." Remember that God sees and judges all actions.

Jesus associated with tax collectors, publicly known sinners, prostitutes, etc. Doesn't mean he condoned their conduct and actions. He was known for mercy and looking for repentance. 
It's true that there should not be close association which can lead to condoning and even sharing in the sins of someone. Some of us will show more judgment and some will show more mercy. Not everyone will find the same middle-ground. 
I thought these thoughts from a recent Watchtower were good:
*** w21 October pp. 11-12 pars. 14-16 We Serve the God Who Is “Rich in Mercy” ***
Sometime later, Paul learned that real changes had taken place. The sinner was truly repentant! Although the man had brought shame on the congregation, Paul told the elders that he did not want “to be too harsh.” He directed them: “Kindly forgive and comfort him.” Note Paul’s reason: “So that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness.” Paul felt pity for the repentant man. The apostle did not want to see the man so overwhelmed, so crushed, by what he did that he would give up on seeking forgiveness.—Read 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, 11.
15 In imitation of Jehovah, the elders love to show mercy. They show firmness when necessary but mercy when possible if there is a real basis for it. Otherwise, it is not mercy but permissiveness. Are elders the only ones, though, who need to show mercy?
WHAT CAN HELP ALL OF US TO SHOW MERCY?
16 All Christians seek to imitate Jehovah’s mercy. Why? One reason is that Jehovah will not listen to those who fail to show mercy to others. (Read Proverbs 21:13.) None of us would want Jehovah to refuse to listen to our prayers, so we carefully avoid developing a hard-hearted spirit. Rather than turn a deaf ear to a fellow Christian in pain, we must always be ready to listen to “the cry of the lowly one.” Similarly, we take to heart this inspired counsel: “The one who does not practice mercy will have his judgment without mercy.” (Jas. 2:13) If we humbly remember how much we need mercy, we are more likely to show mercy. We especially want to show mercy when a repentant wrongdoer returns to the congregation.
If a man continues in conduct that he is not sorry about, and he calls himself a brother, then close association could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as the congregation's acceptance of wicked conduct. I agree that we have to be careful about such things. A person who recognizes that they have no right to call themselves a brother and who appears sorry about the wrong will leave us in a position to make our own decision about what level of association might be useful for them and that shows a proper level of mercy. There are some things that will boil down to a matter of conscience, in my opinion. But no one else needs to hold my same opinion:
 (1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.
 

Yes I am fond of Pudgy..tho I’ve never had proof he was disfellowshipped….I would have still been especially fond of Peter even after he three times betrayed his Christ ….who as we know never disfellowshipped him…I don’t know who I’m really talking with…as to your name but your personality is familiar to me.
Actually I think you are very clever and knowledgeable with the scriptures and  Jehovah’s Witness’s and going by what you have said you must be very old. And go back a long way…I love your old historical memories and I have learnt from you a number of times and even upvoted you…..I wish I had your astute knowledge brother and your recall of scriptures…you certainly have a treasure with them.
But I do feel also sorry for you as you do not know Jesus very well..you lack the depth of his love. In our cong we had elders who said ….three strikes and your out…so many young ones were disfellowshipped . Most lost to the world but some survived it….Peter would have been disfellowshipped by them also and I have a feeling you would be like them.
You need to keep up with the new understandings and thoughts of the GB…they are teaching the real love that Jesus showed to those others considered ..good for nothing…they are really really pushing how we need to be kind to each other and even show kindness to those disfellowshipped…or did you miss that point.
Im preety sure you won’t change..but I wish you would be a little more gentle with people…I’m not an apostate and nor are the others you mentioned….but at least you and JWI and a couple of others keep this forum surviving….I would personally still love to hear about your experiences and memories of Russell’s time etc…as they are invaluable..
At least the conversation between you and JWI gives two sides to the coin….and each has good points to learn so I’ve learnt from both of you.

He is.
Nonetheless, his example has helped me. I had a ‘take no prisoners’ approach when I first became active here. Nobody gonna saying nothin bad bout God nor the earthly organization on my watch. I was not free of ad hominem attacks. Nothing like you, of course, but I was not free of them. I was also given to sarcasm.  He reined me back that. Sometimes you have to see where people are coming from and why. If you address a topic, just address it. Just answer a question. If you employ any sarcasm at all, even though the rest of your answer is brilliant, the other person will zero in only your sarcasm, and the overall reply is lost. Of course, it still stands for members of ‘the public’ who frequent this fine site, but it also sets a bad example for them. I look upon almost with awe on how restrained he keeps himself when interacting with you, kicking back only when your adhominems and weird accusations become intolerable, and even then in a restrained way. Anyone else rather quickly collapses under your dark strangeness and throws themselves against the electric fence, like concentration camp inmates who have lost hope.
To be sure, I don’t share his interest in this particular matter of 607. If it is wrong, it will be changed. Probably, the rapid deterioration of this systems of things will make the point moot, anyway. And you can always say, ‘Oh, to blazes with it! ‘Generation’ means ‘era,’ and in that way get another 60 years out of it, if not more.
Why doesn’t he state his point just once or twice and move on? I think it is quite clear that is what would happen if not for you. He states a point in a scholarly way. You apply accelerant and make sure the entire ‘public’ knows about it. In this way, you facilitate ‘apostasy’ far more than he.
It is crucial that you stop doing this.
Absolutely vital. The public should drop everything to figure it out. Start with the excellent book (my latest) ‘In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction,’ available at Amazon, and most ebook retailers. Take note of the metadata:
“Those of the Enlightenment laud the “human experiment” that is democracy, Jehovah’s Witnesses laud the human experiment that is worldwide family. Theirs is John Lennon’s brotherhood of man not rejoicing that there is above us only sky but instead seeking direction from that sky. A family all but solving racism, a family uniting nationalities and social classes. Who wouldn’t want a double-shot of it? But even a recent circuit overseer likened it to “one big, united, happy, somewhat dysfunctional family,” a phrase I suspect is not in any outline.

“Witnesses are ordinary folk, with all the foibles of ordinary folk, and sometimes a few extra thrown in since “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are ill do: I [Jesus] came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

“What drives the Witnesses? Examine what faces these ordinary folk who star in a world-stage role that is alternately noble and strange. Some challenge is external: “A large door that leads to activity has been opened to me, but there are many opposers.” Some challenge is internal: “We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels.” Translation: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

“Either way, “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you . . . as though a strange thing were befalling you,” says Peter. Don‘t be puzzled. Tackle it head-on. Start with the pure bonus, ‘Things that drive you crazy about the faith--and how to view them,’ for the goal is to endure: “When the Son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on the earth?” says Jesus. ‘Not if we have anything to do with it,’ reply ever increasing enemies.

"If errors were what you watch, O Jah, O Jehovah, who could stand?” asks the psalm. Is watching errors not the mission statement of today’s culture, typified in its media? Nobody stands as their enemies magnify, enhance, and even concoct evil reports—see it play out on the internet with any public figure, “admiring personalities,” until they destroy them. Ought Christians play that game?

"Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is stumbled, and I am not incensed? If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness,” says Paul. Three times the apostle entreated God to remove a “thorn in his flesh” Nothing doing, God said. I look better when you are flawed. If brilliant people achieve brilliant things, it’s easy to see why. But when flawed people do it . . .”
“Tips on the ministry within. How did Witnesses fare in the face of COVID-19? How to regard ever-present conspiracy theories that ripple through society? And what about those overlapping generations? How long can they overlap? What is at stake? What facts on the ground identify the times? Venturing to the edge of the universe, rewriting the textbooks, and dressing down the god of good luck is all in a day's work. Meet Mephibosheth, that faithful man of old whom nobody can pronounce his name at the New System Dinner Table. A bad boy turns over a new leaf, a theodicy that works, and my favorite circuit overseer finish up the offerings.”
It is essential that people read this work.
(I have a collection or two of the Bill Watterson cartoons ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ Some are named things like ‘The Essential Calvin and Hobbes.’ Watterson said he chose such titles because few things could be less essential than a collection of cartoons. I admit, I tease you a bit when so many things with you are ‘essential, and ‘crucial.’)

Actually, he expressed remorse quite clearly on the forum. But from what I understand from you, you have the ability to read hearts and therefore you can judge without being concerned about being judged with the same measure in return. 
You quoted 1 Cor 5:13 which, in context, also says:
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”
I'm sure you can easily guess who 99% of the people on this forum first think of when they hear the word "reviler." Remember that God sees and judges all actions.

Goodness. Would you have tried to stone Jesus? He asked us to love even our enemies!

I'm surprised that you finally admitted that. Some of your confusion appears to be clearing up.
If you now admit that his 37th year was 568 BCE, then his 36th was 569 BCE, his 35th was 570, his 34th was 571, etc., etc.
Do the math. It's simple. You are finally claiming that his 19th year was 586 BCE, and his 18th year was 587 BCE.

Now you appear to be getting it.
Found it: 
(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . ., that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .
(Jeremiah 52:29)  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
(2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .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. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. 

Sheeesh…I didn’t even say anything 🫤

I hope no one else is confused. I haven't changed my stance in 15 years, 10 of them here on a public forum. I have always agreed that 607, plus or minus a year or two, is an excellent time with which to start the 70 years of Babylon's desolations against the nations per Jeremiah 25:10. And I have also believed that the "these 70 years" of Zechariah's reference to the destruction of the temple is a good fit (plus or minus a year or two) based on the Watchtower's own date for the timing of Zechariah's prophecy (about 518/517 BCE as the 4th year of Darius). "These 70 years" of the Temple's destruction would therefore run from about 587 to 517 using the Watchower's own year for the 4th year of Darius.
*** it-2 p. 1225 Zechariah, Book of ***
The last time indicator found in the book of Zechariah is the fourth day of Chislev in the fourth year of Darius’ reign (about December 1, 518 B.C.E.)
 
Turns out that Adam Rutherford used the same scriptures and evidence I have used to reach the same Biblical conclusion, but he "adjusts" it by two years, for his own reasons.
I added the same image from his Vol 3 as above, but this time to highlight the dates 585 to 515 on the right under the destruction (and rebuilding) of the Temple.
 

Still traveling. Sunday's talk was "Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom" by Brother West from East Shelby Congregation, which is just a couple of towns over from @Pudgy. Made me wonder how he is doing. Anyone heard from him? I have never followed @Pudgy on the forums, but from his Profile it looks like he has still shown no activity here since May 6th. 
Back to the topic. 
I have no idea about apostates relying on the Babylonian Chronicles, but I see that Adam Rutherford relies on them in exactly the same way that COJ does. No difference. What COJ does a bit differently, is to ALSO rely on 100% of the astronomy readings . A.Rutherford can only rely on a few of them because he has chosen to disregard all evidence that gets in the way of his two-year adjustment of the entire Neo-Babylonian period.
This means he can rely completely on the accuracy of the regnal lengths found in Ptolemy's writings, and all the contract tablets, and ALL the different segments of the Babylonian Chronicles. That's because they don't include the actual BCE years, just the relative chronology. Rutherford uses Ptolemy's regnal lengths, but does not incorporate the actual astronomical dates that Ptolemy associated with those years. That would have given him 538 for the first year of Cyrus not 536 -- and would have given him 604 for the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the year 602 that Adam Rutherford uses. Rutherford takes what the Watchtower has called the supposed "absolute" and "pivotal" date of 539, and changes that date to 537 for the year Cyrus captured Babylon. So much for absolute dates!!
COJ exactly agrees with the Watchtower for this date (539) because both sources (COJ and WTS) use the astronomy evidence for all the years from Nabonidus down through most of the Persian period. That includes Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses.
So although Adam Rutherford rejects the Watchtower Chronology, to keep 1914, he still ends up supporting Russell (and Barbour's) chronology as far as he can. It's easy to see why:
Barbour and Russell derived 1914 primarily through calculations related to Israel's "double" and not through counting 2,520 years from 606. The use of the “7 times” was a secondary method for calculating 1914, and it wasn't even based on Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy of Daniel 4. The primary method was based on counting 40 years from 1874 to get 1914. When the "7 gentile times" of Leviticus was used as a further support, Barbour knew he had to find a major event from 606 BCE. A quick check of Rev. Bowen's chronology in Rev. Elliott's famous book looked like it had dated the destruction of the Temple in 606. Perfect!
But Adam Rutherford knew that counting  back from 1914 actually leads to 607. And he had easily seen that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king until 605, which was two years later. So his 18th year would have been 587 per the received evidence. For his own reasons, Adam Rutherford made that even worse by changing that period another two years so that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year would have been 585 BCE, not 587 BCE. 
So. Adam Rutherford had a new problem trying to support Russell's 1914 because he now had to find a DIFFERENT event for 607 BCE. For this event he did exactly what many Bible commentators have done. He did what COJ would also later do. He knew that 607 was BEFORE Nebuchadnezzar's kingship, and went with Jeremiah 25:10-12 and made it the "Fall of Assyria" using the date between 609 (Harran) and 605 (Carchemish). 607. Perfect!
All you need is a major Biblical event for 606 or 607 and let interpretation do the rest. So that 1914 can still work for you as the culmination of 2,520 years before that 1914 date. 

Yes. He confidently says that the received date, 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon to Cyrus must be lowered by 2 years 

Unfortunately for him, the Watchtower chronology is exactly correct through this period and matches the tablets and the secular scholars readings, too. 
True. A lot of people don't want to think for themselves. Taking Carl Olof Jonsson's word for something that is so simple to check out for oneself is a stupid mistake. A person should "make sure of all things," not just take man's word for it. 
The exact date of the siege and fall of Jerusalem around the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar isn't important to me. The claim that a false chronology must be correct just because we've used most of it to hang onto a date that Barbour and Russell once published is a false premise. If we stand for truth, then we can't just make claims without evidence and tell the world that we are right and the astronomy is wrong. It would be one thing if we said that we know the chronology is wrong and have rejected it, but we hypocritically claim that the chronology is correct when it gives us 539 BCE, which we can use. But then we claim it is incorrect when it gives us 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Both of those dates are backed consistently by all the astronomical evidence. And even if we didn't trust any of the astronomical evidence, we have all the archaeological evidence telling us that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is exactly 49 years from the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. So it's a matter of presenting ourselves as upright and honest to the public that concerns me. We can believe whatever we want, but we can't be dishonest and pretend we have scholarly evidence for it, or that we are superior somehow because we can base our chronology on a lack of evidence. We look haughty when we present these alternatives to anyone who has looked into the matter for themselves, as everyone should. 
And just to make the point even clearer, recall that you have never and probably will never answer simple questions: 
What astronomical evidence do you use to get the date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign? What year did it give you?
You have never been able to give a straightforward answer to such simple questions under any of your accounts.
 That's correct. Thank you.
A discussion talks about the merits of the evidence. A fight is when both sides look to attack the person, and call names. What often happens here is that one person is willing to discuss the merits of the evidence, and the other person gets angry and starts calling him an apostate, or a liar, or a deceiver. It seems like that person wants a fight, but can't really get one because the other person still wants to discuss the merits of the evidence. At least, that's been my experience here for many years.
 

According to an article on the Bible Student site HERALDMAG.ORG [ http://www.heraldmag.org/2004_history/04history_7.htm ] Adam Rutherford was a Bble Student
This is fairly obvious from several passages in the 4 volumes, especially the first which paraphrases Joseph Seiss and C.T.Russell quotes, often nearly verbatim. Also he references Morton and John Edgar who were Bible Students in Russell's time and who went on to publish two extensive volumes on the Great Pyramid. In fact, one page of Volume 1 of Adam Rutherford's book (122) is nearly a full page quote from Russell's "Divine Plan of the Ages" (191-192). A.Rutherford even calls it the Bible in Stone several times, just as Russell (and Seiss and others) did. And he also calls it the blueprint of the Divine Plan of the Ages. He uses all the same scriptural references that Russell used in support of the supposed prophetic importance of the Pyramid.
But he has also adjusted a few of the dates, ignoring most of the pre-1914 dates that Russell made note of, and makes much use of the 2,520 number, starting it not with the destruction of the Temple (which he would put around 587 BCE) but with the beginning of the Babylonian Empire at the final destruction of the Assyrian Empire, which he places in 607 BCE. He uses the astronomy-backed dates instead of the Barbour/Russell date that the Watchtower still uses today. He also counts from the exact beginning of the Babylonian Empire's incursions against Judea in 604 BCE (first official year of Nebuchadnezzar) to show that they (2520) end with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. But the future dates he focuses on would have put the start of the Millennium in AD 1994 and the end of the Millennium in AD 2994.  

A better question is: what motivated nearly ZERO brothers that we know about to stand up for the Bible's view? What motivated brothers after they began following Russell, to study the pyramids and write extensively, even visiting the Great Pyramid and writing books about it, in full support of faulty mathematics, and faulty astronomy? What made them so gullible? What motivated The Bible Students Monthly (in the issue just prior to the one you showed earlier) to make exorbitant claims that this pyramid was the ORACLE of Jehovah? Why did no one seem to question it at all until the very day that Rutherford came out in the Watchtower and said it was from Satan?  

None. That's my point. If someone is just about to come into the truth, and they ask their study conductor if it's true that this or that controversy really happened, or if it was true that when Brother Jackson testified at the Australian Royal Commission on CSA really said that Proverbs isn't really talk about corporal punishment. Then what happens when the study conductor says, "No, Brother Jackson was never asked to testify, or we would have heard about it in the Watchtower or on JW.ORG." (This supposedly actually happened, although the original question was only about whether he testified at the ARC, not about corporal punishment.) Now, who is spreading disinformation??? 
The likelihood of "stumbling" a new one may be even stronger when we outright deny something through ignorance of controversial issues. That person who asked the study conductor about something, and the study conductor spread disinformation in response. Now we have a possibility that the one studied with can just easily pull up the video, and he will begin thinking that JWs are some kind of cult who will deny reality. And the study conductor may begin wondering "why such important information was hidden from us." Now we have TWO persons potentially stumbled, when just being aware of the situation could have easily resolved the whole thing, and Brother Jackson's words could be better defended in context.
When we are so quick to deny anything negative out of ignorance, we not only look bad, we can easily cause others to stumble, especially when we consider how easy it is for people to find controversial information online. I think there will come a time very soon when any question can be asked of an AI LLM and it will quickly spit out ALL sides of the answer to a question, pro and con. We shouldn't be so arrogant as to suppose that only OUR own preferred side of a controversy will be available to interested persons. 

Yes. But as I said, if there is a good answer to anything controversial that you or I or others bring up here, then that answer appears right here, online, where the original controversial point has probably been rehashed in other places with or without an answer. Also, if there is no viable answer to the controversy, then the issue has been brought up and persons who are interested in truth ("making sure of all things") will know that there is no answer to it (yet). That's also good information to have so that we don't go around deceiving people inadvertently. 
For example, let's say that someone claims that "Pyramidology" was presented as truth to householders as late 1933, nearly 5 years after it was declared "from the Devil" and two years after most Bible Student associations and individuals began identifying themselves as "Jehovah's witnesses." This point was brought up to me once (by a Bethel sister, who was a proofreader, no less) and I was asked to question the writer about making a small change in the "ka" book which referenced this point of organizational history incorrectly.  This book ("ka") was about to be reprinted for the mid-week Book Study. I claimed to her that her statement was false. But she showed me the 1928 through 1933 "Informants" which she had copies of. This was something controversial to her and she knew it, and she wanted someone else to pass the question back to the writer. 
To be sure, she was skewing the emphasis on pyramidology to make the point more memorable. The "ka" book reference never mentioned pyramidology, only the date when the Society stopped selling the Studies in the Scriptures series. 
Should we all have ignored the issue? This book was going out to the public. I placed several copies of this book myself. Interested persons would attend the Book Study. In the end, it was decided that the sentence would not be corrected. But does this mean no one should have questioned? Should no one have tried to "make sure of all things"?
But I also learned that the people who get angry over such things, when the answer is not in favor of their interests, are the ones who KNOW there is no answer, or don't want to admit the answer. That's why I'm not concerned about bringing up controversial things publicly. There is nothing secret that will not be made known. 
And I've found that online the anger is most often from those who, deep down, realize that they don't like the truth. But I always remember Proverbs 6:17; Psalm 26:3; Psalm 31:5: ". . . Jehovah, the God of truth."

I hope pudgy is okay but I’m fearing the worse……I really like pudgy…

I don't care. I still prefer the Bible. And if they can both be harmonized, so much the better.
Go back to your points enumerated 1, 2, 3 in your last post and note that you are still confused about interaction with Egypt and others in his 37th year, and trying to claim that this somehow proves that he couldn't have done what the Bible says he did in his 18th and/or 19th year. 
You are still showing so confusion that it looks like you have no business trying to discuss this matter right now.

You are confused again. Or you are having trouble reading and understanding. Or you are being dishonest. I said the opposite. When I say you can throw out VAT 4956 because there are other tablets, I mean it. No one needs to believe in VAT 4956 at all if they are trying to understand the absolute chronology of the period. They can use any or all of the many other astronomical records of the period.
Opposers of the astronomical evidence, like yourself, would apparently love to make it look like supporters of this evidence are all obsessed with just onw tablet, when they themselves are obsessed with trying to minimize the evidence to just one tablet. Then of course, they think that there would just be ONE tablet to dismiss or try to criticize. Of course, any criticisms they do make note of just happen to be the same criticisms that are 10 times worse for the ONE tablet that the Watchtower focuses one to get the 7th year of Cambyses. And from which the WTS will derive 539 in an unnecessarily convoluted manner, just to avoid admitting that ALL of the data for the entire period is consistent with the astronomical evidence.
Another false statement. You were and are still fixated on the dates 587 and 568 and you kept confusing which one referred to the 37th year and which one referred to the 18th and which one (or both) was being claimed as the year of Jerusalem's destruction. In fact, you show it again in your very next sentence:
This tablet, again, is about observations from the 37th year of his reign. Why would anyone think it was related to his 18th/19th? You are still showing too much confusion about the matter. Re-read the Bible accounts in Jeremiah and 2 Kings and Ezekiel, or the references in the Insight book, at least. They will all tell you which regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with the destruction.
If he was occupied in his 18th year with someone else, that's fine. But the Bible still associates the destruction of Jerusalem with the 18th year of his reign. I don't have to challenge your secular sources. But why do you feel the need to challenge the Bible, when it comes to his 18th year?
If you like your secular sources so much you also have other options which allow you to keep the Bible account along with your secular sources. For example, you can note the distinct possibility that the 18th year was still part of the siege before the wall was broken down, and that the 19th year might be the most appropriate for the final destruction. That would make it 586, which I have absolutely no problem with myself. Also, if you read the accounts carefully, you will see that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't necessarily there in person in those years, although he was stated to be there in person during his 7th/8th year. You may also read carefully enough to note that the exiles taken in the 7th/8th year focused on Judea, but the 18th/19th focused on Jerusalem itself. (Jeremiah 52). Also you might note from the Chronicles themselves that Judea and Egypt appear to have been related from Babylon's perspective and could potentially even be seen as part of the same related campaign(s). 

Go back to my last post. It appears that you are the one who is continuing to disregard facts to try to vaidate your own false assumptions. 
Of course I haven't been able to show that destruction of Jerusalem is described in his 37th year. Because that's not when the Bible says it happened. See the last post. You have shown too much confusion to take this much further with you. You really seem to have no business trying to discuss Neo-Babylonian chronology. 
No. You don't. You never have. You have always claimed that you have, but no one has seen you or any of your additional accounts try to do this. You have shown too much confusion on the matter. It seems you really have no business trying to discuss it.
At least that's absolutely true!
Although that's absolutely a false and misleading statement, if you happen to believe it's true, then throw out VAT 4956. It's absolutely unnecessary to establish the absolute dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. There are about 50 other direct observations on other tablets that all happen to coincide and consistently confirm the same dates. Of course, opposers of the astronomical data would love to throw ALL of them out except for one or two that confirm the 7th year of Cambyses. But even THAT one is part of the same set of data that confirms the absolute dates for the entire period.
Again, 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, just as much (or more) than 538 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 1st year of Cyrus over Babylon.

I agree. I have seen zero substantiated factual information from you. You are always quick to use words like "misleading" "dishonest" "lying" "inaccurate" "false" etc., but these accusations are always empty and meaningless because you don't offer anything to address your claims.
What you apparently have tried to include as "facts" have always shown little more than confusion about the issue. This is in every post so far that pretends to make use of "evidence." I'll give examples from this last one I am quoting from above:
As I stated above VAT 4956 is unimportant to this discussion, but VAT 4956 gives an absolute date of 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It also gives us an absolute date of 568 BCE for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
You say Nebuchadnezzar was occupied with other military campaigns in his 37th year, which the astronomical data indicates as 568 BCE. That's fine. What if he was? That's nearly two decades after 587 BCE. Many of your posts on this particular point have shown so much confusion on this point that I have ignored them because it seemed silly to deal with confused nonsense. But this time I will explain. 
You went on to say:
You actually do NOT have historical evidence that places Nebuchadnezzar approximately 400 miles away in 587. You accidentally admitted this in other posts, including the more recent one where you added the following:
You see what you have done here? I highlighted it above in red. You have confused Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year with 587 BCE. His 37th year was 568 BCE. You ask how he could have destroyed Jerusalem in his 37th year, when the Bible (and the WTS too, for that matter) associate the major destruction, including the Temple, with his 18th/19th year. You are off by nearly 20 years, so what does it matter what other campaigns he may or may not have been involved with 20 years later? The Bible says his campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem were especially notable in the 7th, 18th, and 23rd years. Nothing about his 37th year. 
Displaying even more confusion, you went on to say:
I have never thought there was proof that establishes the year 568 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Again, that's the 37th year, made absolute by several astronomical observations during the years of his reign. VAT 4956 happens to confirm what all the other observations already confirm. Hopefully NO ONE is looking for proof that Jerusalem fell in his 37th year.
 

No. They are not.
VAT 4956 gives us 587 BCE as an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. VAT 4956 gives us 604 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year of reign. VAT 4956 gives us 586 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of reign. VAT 4956 gives us 568 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year of reign. VAT 4956 gives us direct evidence that 607 BCE was not ANY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. If you don't understand that to be true then you have no business discussing Neo-Babylonian chronology. Period.
Archaeologists and historians discuss relative chronology and absolute chronology. The Bible never gives us an absolute chronology, but it gives us a fairly complete relative chronology. The only thing that can give us an absolute chronology for Neo-Babylonian times is an astronomical date. That's the only thing that can tie a piece of evidence to a specific year in the BCE or CE era. That's what the term "absolute" means to archaeologists and historians. 
But there is no reason for opposers of the astronomical chronology to obsess over VAT 4956. That's because WITH it you can know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. But WITHOUT it you can still know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. ALL of the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are known in ABSOLUTE years, because there are many more astronomical observations and reports that tie 587 BCE directly to his 18th year of reign. 
Whether or not Nebuchadnezzar had any interaction with Jerusalem in his 18th and 19th year is up to you to either agree with or deny. All I can tell you is that we have ABSOLUTE BCE dates for every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

I’ve seen entire armies vanish. If you exercised the correct wisdom belonging to true knowledge and the correct knowledge belonging to true wisdom, you would realize this explains some missing years of Nebuchadnezzar. I banned him. He crossed a line.
It’s okay to move it back again. Once he gets an idea in his head, it’s impossible to get it out, so I corroborate it instead. It is crucial and essential that you understand this. We must not deceive the public.
 

And I thought I was acknowledging the truth even before any of your misleading posts. LOL.
(And no I am not making fun of your grammar. Your grammar was perfect. I am merely copying one of your tactics to reflect your own words back to you in order to highlight your constant, empty ad hominem style. You always throw in as much pejorative snarkiness as you can, but you never are able to address any specific point.)
I honestly don't know who banned George, or exactly why either. But I doubt seriously it could have been for speaking the truth. On topics like this one at least, truth was far removed from him.