JW Insider

I got into some trouble with this post on FB. Several who use Zoom a lot were indignant, thinking I was calling them luke-warm Christians or worse. One, who has always been a pal, proceeded to tell me off on no uncertain terms.
Of course, it is my own fault, as @George88 pointed out. Had I made clear from the beginning that the opening question was not mine, it would not have happened. I told this brother that 
“I wasn’t speaking at all about you or any of the situations you mention. I should have stated—and would have were I to do it again—that the Question about ‘boring meetings’ is not mine, but was taken off a social media site (Quora) that pitches out questions for anyone to answer. I decided to answer it, and so the next three paragraphs are mine, but not the question itself. It may be the question was not written by a current Witness at all, but a former one. There are some in that population that openly boast of being PIMO, with the eventual ‘goal’ of being POMO (physically out/mentally out). Many of the friends have never even heard of that terminology, but it is sort of a modern-day ‘Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things.’ It is among the reason that our numbers have been stuck around 8 million for many years now, barely growing at all. I wasn’t in any way speaking of ones like you.”
upon which, he made a graceful reply and all is well again.
On the one hand, I was heartened that so many black screens chewed me out, taking umbrage that I should think them PIMO. On the other, I was disheartened that so many had never even heard of the term—not the term itself, really, but the phenomenon. Alas, it does kind of smack (in the case of those who are shepherds) of not knowing the appearance of the flock.
 

Al Kapp, the cartoonist, stuck to traditional ‘follow the flag’ values. He didn’t think much of the young people protesting, and lampooned them with the group, S.W.I.N.E. (Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything) 
He would appear on campus and tell them off. One of the protesting youths asked the pugnacious fellow whether he thought young people held any advantage at all over older ones. ‘Yes, they’re better at carrying luggage,’ he replied.

That's my point. Most of us (Witnesses) in my experience have never personally arrived at a conclusion about 539 except by simply READING the explanation in WT publications. In your case you also have a lot of books by current scholars on the subject but I think you've already admitted before that EVERY one of them puts the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar within a few months of 587 and 586 BCE. 
And most Witnesses if you ask them will THINK that the explanation about 539 is somehow better and more direct than the ways in which the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are associated with BCE dates. 
The reason I asked how you personally arrived at it was because I figured you might have checked it out for yourself and realized that more recently even the WT publications themselves now ADMIT that the method for figuring out CYRUS' regnal years are indirect and makes use of additional assumptions -- assumptions which are not necessary with much of the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years. 
I'm sure you already know exactly what I'm talking about since you have read the explanations in WT publications. I would be very surprised if you didn't know this already.
Also, almost NO Witnesses I have ever spoken to, with only a very few current exceptions have ever admitted going to the trouble to use an astronomy program to check it out for themselves. As simple as this is to do, and with all the importance so many Witnesses attach to chronology.
I do think it's an indication that there is a real FEAR of what they might find out. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it's FEAR because if we thought we might find out something that might bolster our teaching about 607 we'd be anxious to see for ourselves. We'd be thrilled to see if those claims by Furuli were really true: that the evidence is questionable. Instead, it's easier to have faith in someone who claims that the evidence for all of these dates is open to question. Yet they forget that that this includes 539 which somehow still remains "pivotal." 
Deep down, I'm starting to believe that NO ONE really looks at the evidence, and if anyone knows ANYTHING about the evidence they don't really believe the evidence is going to go our way and that's why we avoid it.

And it's also a fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE also enjoys universal acceptance within scholarship.
 And although the event of the fall of Babylon by Cyrus was NOT a fully described in the context of the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Davidic monarchy, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year absolutely WAS described in pretty much exactly those terms.
So, again, I'd have to ask why . . .
539 is surely no less open to interpretation than the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. According to your listed criteria, that would make Nebuchadnezzar's reign much more pivotal. Besides the fact that we can double-check the evidence for MANY MORE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign than for Cyrus, and each year strengthens the evidence for all the other years. If a three-fold cord cannot easily be broken, then an eight-fold cord ought to be even stronger than that. 
Since currently we are asked to reject the evidence for all the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign which are MUCH better documented, why don't you just use the Bible's date of Nebuchadnezzar 19th year, and reject the secular date of 539 for Cyrus? Just make the claim that since we KNOW Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is a PIVOTAL year, and that it's even more pivotal than 539 for Cyrus, then just start claiming that Cyrus captured Babylon in 519. You get to keep the 70 year period intact, just as you do now. It's EXACTLY what's being done at the OTHER end. Why does it matter so much which secular date we put faith in and which secular date we dismiss?  
We'd be doing exactly the same thing we are doing now except that we would then be saying that 539 is just a secular date but that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is a Bible date, and that we'll choose the Bible's dates over Secular dates every time.
I'm surprised you even admitted that one. It's an even better criteria for using Nebuchadnezzar's pivotal Bible dates instead of the secular Cyrus 1 date. Several of Nebuchadnezzar's years actually ARE synchronized to the Judean monarchy, yet ZERO of Cyrus' dates are. 

No. As we've already established NONE of them are, not as BCE dates. We are ONLY talking about how you might determine that a certain reference to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar (in this case) has been assigned a valid BCE date. After you assign any ONE of them to a regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar, you have just assigned BCE dates to ALL the known years of his reign, even ones I didn't mention. (I only focused on ones where I had already personally checked astronomical data that was related to major events of interest or referenced on Babylonian tablets.)
To be clear, if you tell me how old you were on April 1, 1999, then I can tell you how old you were on April 1st every year from when you turned ONE all the way up to the most recent April 1st. 

You have that wrong. He absolutely does! Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587/6 BCE. Just as he believes his 19th year was 586/5 BCE, his 23rd year was 582/1, etc. 
Note, for example, page 40 of the following work by him.
Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province
Oded Lipschits Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 335 (Aug., 2004), pp. 37-52 (16 pages) https://doi.org/10.2307/4150068•https://www.jstor.org/stable/4150068   Also note the comment later on the same page:     Perhaps you thought I was referring to the date for the more complete destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. I also would put this more complete destruction of the city and temple almost as likely in 586, and we should recall not just the two different "new year" dates that are six months apart, and the difference in counting even a partial accession year as a full year with some Bible writers, but also the fact that the siege lasted about a year and a half. (Yes, I have read Rodger Young and Edwin Thiele on the matter of regnal year counting.)   I was asking, not about the destruction itself, but what was the BCE YEAR that Oded Lipschits identifies as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. So the answer is definitely 587 BCE. (Using the usual Spring/Nisan start of the new year, 587 starts in the spring, and therefore will contain about 3 months of 586. This is one of the main reasons we'll often see a BCE date written, for example, as 587/6 instead of just 587.   We also know from several of his papers, books and articles, that Lipschits begins the period of Babylonian domination over other nations with the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, starting with the campaigns of 605, and then his 1st year, 604.    It might be worth the reminder that whenever you find a reference to any year in Nebuchadnezzar's reign, such as when Lipschits says: "in the 23rd year of Nebuchadrezzar's reign (582/581 B.C.E.)" this is the same as saying his 22nd year was 583/2, his 21st year was 584/3, his 20th was 585/4, his 19th was 586/5 and his 18th was 587/6, etc.      Also, you seemed to miss the point of the question. Even if you thought that Lipschits used a different year-to-year schema, my question means the same thing as if I had asked:   Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 [586] BCE?   If the Neo-Babylonian regnal years of the NB kings were open to interpretation, why does he not admit that anywhere? Do you think that all these professors and historians and archaeologists of the period are just going along with what they've heard the way most Witnesses do? Or do you think they do a little research before making such definitive use of the NB chronology?

If the astronomical evidence is open to interpretation why do you put faith in 539 as a "pivotal" year?
Since there is even more direct astronomical evidence for:
604 as Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, and 598 as Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, and 591 as Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, and 589 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year, and 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, and  580 as Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year, and 579 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 26th year, and 578 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 27th year, and 577 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year, and 571 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, and 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year . . . . . . then why not use the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as even more pivotal? In other words, why do you have faith that all those years are wrong and have faith that 539 for Cyrus accession is right?
How did you personally arrive at the conclusion that 539 was indeed the year of Cyrus conquering Babylon? Do you think that most Witnesses even know how one arrives at 539 for Cyrus Accession, or 538 for Cyrus 1st year, and 537 for Cyrus 2nd (including the last few months of Cyrus 1st)? Was it through your own research or was it faith in the tradition of our WT publications? If it was through your own research, then again I ask very seriously, how did you arrive at it yourself? And lastly, I think it's great that you had Professor Obed Lipschits -- although you should know that his name is NOT Obed, but Oded Lipschits. My question is:
Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE?

On all these pages where history and dates are discussed, many people are very clearly mentioned with their first and last names and with the names of books, publications, and sources from which they are quoted.
Please, who are the people, by name and surname, who are WT scholars? Let them stand behind their claims with their full name and surname.

If the astronomical evidence is open to interpretation why do you put faith in 539 as a "pivotal" year?
Since there is even more direct astronomical evidence for:
604 as Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, and 598 as Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, and 591 as Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, and 589 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year, and 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, and  580 as Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year, and 579 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 26th year, and 578 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 27th year, and 577 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year, and 571 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, and 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year . . . . . . then why not use the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as even more pivotal? In other words, why do you have faith that all those years are wrong and have faith that 539 for Cyrus accession is right?
How did you personally arrive at the conclusion that 539 was indeed the year of Cyrus conquering Babylon? Do you think that most Witnesses even know how one arrives at 539 for Cyrus Accession, or 538 for Cyrus 1st year, and 537 for Cyrus 2nd (including the last few months of Cyrus 1st)? Was it through your own research or was it faith in the tradition of our WT publications? If it was through your own research, then again I ask very seriously, how did you arrive at it yourself? And lastly, I think it's great that you had Professor Obed Lipschits -- although you should know that his name is NOT Obed, but Oded Lipschits. My question is:
Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE?

Again, that's a valid proposition for an interpretation. But then what do you do with the fact that you can independently calculate Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, "six ways from Sunday"  and discover that each independent way brings you to the year 586 BCE. 
Everything might have looked like a proper interpretation up to that point, but if you look at the exile and consider it to be 70 years long, you end up with a contradiction. The 70 years takes you all the way to 516 BCE. Yet, the same exact set of calculations that show Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE show the first year of Cyrus over Babylon as 538 BCE.
So, you end up with a 70-year period that looks a lot more like the one in Zechariah, which was closer to 516 BCE, as admitted by the "Insight" book:
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
*** 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.). (7:1) Accordingly, this book could not have been committed to writing before the close of 518 B.C.E. 
So that' s the big question for me. What do you do when you discover that the same astronomical evidence that gives you 538 BCE for Cyrus 1st year over Babylon also gives you 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year? 
It seems to me you'd have to make another adjustment to your theory, or else you would be forced to keep sowing seeds of doubt about the Neo-Babylonian chronology. But it's the same chronology that gave you 539 and 538! So you'd merely be sowing more seeds of doubt about the whole interpretation.
To keep this theory, you have to somehow keep believers afraid to look at the astronomical and archaeological evidence for the period. I don't think that's a sustainable way to promote a traditional interpretation. People are naturally curious, and some are going to find out, no matter how much doubt is sown.

Again, that's a valid proposition for an interpretation. But then what do you do with the fact that you can independently calculate Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, "six ways from Sunday"  and discover that each independent way brings you to the year 586 BCE. 
Everything might have looked like a proper interpretation up to that point, but if you look at the exile and consider it to be 70 years long, you end up with a contradiction. The 70 years takes you all the way to 516 BCE. Yet, the same exact set of calculations that show Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE show the first year of Cyrus over Babylon as 538 BCE.
So, you end up with a 70-year period that looks a lot more like the one in Zechariah, which was closer to 516 BCE, as admitted by the "Insight" book:
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
*** 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.). (7:1) Accordingly, this book could not have been committed to writing before the close of 518 B.C.E. 
So that' s the big question for me. What do you do when you discover that the same astronomical evidence that gives you 538 BCE for Cyrus 1st year over Babylon also gives you 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year? 
It seems to me you'd have to make another adjustment to your theory, or else you would be forced to keep sowing seeds of doubt about the Neo-Babylonian chronology. But it's the same chronology that gave you 539 and 538! So you'd merely be sowing more seeds of doubt about the whole interpretation.
To keep this theory, you have to somehow keep believers afraid to look at the astronomical and archaeological evidence for the period. I don't think that's a sustainable way to promote a traditional interpretation. People are naturally curious, and some are going to find out, no matter how much doubt is sown.

It's very possible that this was considered a beginning "date" of the exile (meaning the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar). It obviously was one of the most important dates of exile. But this never says that the exile began counting only at this time. It's a fair interpretation, but not the only one possible. And the very fact that Jeremiah gives 3 different years for the exiles makes a beginning date more nebulous. 
It actually seems likely that most Jews saw the beginning of the Exile in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar. This is also the dating schema that Ezekiel uses to date any year in the "Exilic Era." Starting in 597 BCE according to the evidence.
(Ezekiel 1:1, 2) . . .In the 30th year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was among the exiled people by the river Cheʹbar, the heavens were opened and I began to see visions of God.  On the fifth day of the month—that is, in the fifth year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin. . .
*** it-1 p. 793 Ezekiel, Book of ***
Another notable feature of the book of Ezekiel is the meticulous care Ezekiel took to date his prophecies, giving not only the year of King Jehoiachin’s exile but also the month and day of the month.
Dating everything from the year of the King's exile was the same as dating the exile that started 10 or 11 years before Nebuchadnezzar's 18h/19th year.
And Daniel also begins his exile we say in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th/8th year, not the 18/19th.
Of course, I'm not saying it's wrong. It seems to be the most described part of the disaster, and one could even interpret Jeremiah 52:27 as saying "thus the exile began" referring to the description before which was mostly of the 17th to 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar. It can also appear to describe the 3 exiles listed just after it. The NWT puts it in the above paragraph, not with the 3 exiles that immediately follow the phrase. Logically, it seems to be a heading for the three that follow.
On the issue of Daniel mentioning the third year of Jehoiakim as the beginning of their exile, @George88 has been quoting recently from Wiseman, who takes this to mean that Daniel's exile started closer to 605 BCE, not 597 BCE. In other words, nearer to Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, not this 7th/8th. 

You've intrigued me with this view before in past years (under different names). I know why you usually bring up Tobit, as you did again here in this topic. And I know why you have brought up multiple persons named Nebuchadnezzar, and you even asked me why I ignored that particular evidence. I also know why you have left a kind of "teaser" here about "never denying the validity of the 19 years," because, as you say, it can be used in another way. And I also realize that there is one particular king of this "Nebuchadnezzar line" whose 19th year, either coincidentally or providentially, happens to land on the actual "astronomically validated" and "evidenced" year of 607 BCE.
It's an interesting and intriguing theory, and I understand why you think it's hardly worthy of being subject to the outside opinions any scholars or non-scholars on this forum. You have even mentioned in the past that you had planned to write it up in a more thoroughly researched and more thoroughly formulated manner in order to present it in some way to the WTS.
Because it still fully supports the 607/606 date, and fully supports judgement against both the kingly and religious seat at Jerusalem, and the full 70 years, it would continue to agree with all the major claims we currently make about the current 607 BCE. teaching. And it has the advantage of not being falsified by astronomical tablets. 
I haven't commented much on it, because I have a feeling you are still working out the details, and i think you are finding some factors that mitigate some of the objections you might expect.
I don't need to tell you the kinds of objections you would have to overcome in convincing those who would make a decision about it's usefulness. @xero, perhaps inadvertently, provided one of the biggest ones when he presented the usual comment about the perceived historical unreliableness of Tobit. Of course, you are not "dependent" on Tobit, it might just be that what seems to be a naming anomaly in Tobit happens to reflect a reality that seems otherwise lost in the secular records. And, as you know, there are some ambiguities and confusions among Babylonian names of Kings with overlapping titles, and therefore overlapping names, because those names often contains titles, or were only used as a part of a longer more formal title. 
There's plenty more to it, and I don't fully dismiss your idea. I understand parts of it. But it's yours to describe, and if I try to guess at the points you are finding in Wiseman and other books that might help support the idea, I'm sure I will get some of it wrong. I'm sure I have got some of the above pieces wrong about it already. Perhaps you have already changed or currently resolved some of the prior issues in a different way than you had tried in the past. 
I would be happy to discuss it seriously, but you would have to be more specific than you have been to date.  

OK. I understand that. Thanks.
And I meant something more like whether the Bible ever contains statements like this:
"And Jerusalem and Judea began going into Exile in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim" "And I will bring this nation into exile starting in the 11th year Zedekiah." You will be free from this Exile when the Persians conquer the Babylonians." "And I will free you from this Exile in the first year of Cyrus" "Two years and 3 months after Cyrus conquered the King of Babylon many of the exiled Jews began returning to their homeland and the Exile was declared completed."  There is something very close to that for the end of the exile, but nothing like it for the beginning of the exile. 
So the "dates" for the start and end of the Exile become a matter of interpretation, not a matter of clear Bible declarations or statements. 
As I said before, we need not worry about the beginning and end of the exile in order to determine the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is the date for the fall of Jerusalem as far as the Bible tells us. Similarly, the 14th year of Nabopolassar is the primary date for the fall of Nineveh, if we were to return to the original topic of this thread. So whether the Exile began exactly at that time, or 20 years earlier or 20 years later, the real goal is to find a BCE date that fits the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 14th year of Nabopolassar. 
But I would like to try to think through your question anyway. It's the one question where you have pushed me to think in a different direction in the past, and I'd like to take it more seriously this time. I'll probably move this part of the discussion to a new topic/thread, so that we'll have a more serious place to discuss it.
For now, I'll start rambling off my thoughts about it. 
I think that it's best to think that the exile began when Nebuchadnezzar first began taking exiles. So we should look for the first time the Bible puts any kind of date on events related to "exiles."
The most obvious "first" verse in that regard at first might appear to be this one:
(Jeremiah 52:28) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.
I've tested about 8 different pieces of Babylonian astronomical evidence and my software programs always puts that in the year 598. The Babylonian Chronicles claim that it happened very late in that year and therefore probably included an early part of 597. So that would be 598/597 BCE.  
The next verse shows that a much smaller number of exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was the same year the city and the temple at Jerusalem was considered destroyed:
(Jeremiah 52:29) . . .In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
All the astronomical evidence I have seen, and that I have tested myself, consistently places that 18th year as 587 BCE.
The next verse shows a smaller number of people taken as exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year:
(Jeremiah 52:30) . . .In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . .
And, of course, all the astronomical evidence places this date as 582 BCE.
But that's not the whole story, of course. The Watchtower publications show that Nebuchadnezzar was marching around Syria-Palestine, so that we know he was near the Judean nation much earlier. The Babylonian Chronicles and the Watchtower publications both agree that this was in the Accession year of Nebuchadnezzar . All the astronomical tablet evidence places that date in the year 605 BCE. The same year that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the King of Egypt (Necho) at Carchemish. The Bible dates that, too:
(Jeremiah 46:2) . . .For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharʹaoh Neʹcho the king of Egypt, who was along the Eu·phraʹtes River and was defeated at Carʹche·mish by King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon in the fourth year of Je·hoiʹa·kim son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah:
But do we have evidence that there were exiles taken from Judah this early in Nebuchadnezzar's regime? 
(Daniel 1:1-6) . . .In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2  In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, . . . Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. . . . They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. 
So the answer is apparently Yes. During that early march through the land, just as both the Watchtower publications admit and the Babylonian Chronicles also claim, there were some exiles taken at that time, too. They were even called by the term exiles.
(Daniel 2:25) . . .Arʹi·och quickly took Daniel in before the king and said to him: “I have found a man of the exiles of Judah who can make known the interpretation to the king.”
Of course, I am quite aware that the Watchtower interpretation doesn't agree with the date mentioned in Daniel 1:1. So the Watchtower changes the meaning of "third year of Jehoiakim" to mean something else.

Yes, it does. There shouldn't be any confusion. It's a simple calculation. I'm planning on showing @xero exactly which document he can use, and how he can check it with easy to obtain astronomy software.
And after his accession year is calculated, there is a way to double-check independently by using the actual date provided in the Insight book for that rare portion of the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles where the Watchtower has not added the 20-year gap. From that point you can use the information taken from two other Babylonian documents --without even requiring astronomy software -- and see that it will easily provide the same accession year for Nabopolassar of 626 BCE. 
And for good measure, one could even then take an additional Babylonian inscription (stele), and double-check again using simple math, without requiring more astronomy software, and get the same year.
But you do need to use the software at least once to start with at least one year within Nabopolassar's reign. From any known, it's simple to figure out his accession year. After all, if you know his first year was 625 BCE, then it's obvious his accession year must be 626. If you knew his 11th year was 615, then it would still be obvious you could calculate his accession year as 626. The best Babylonian tablet gives us the exact BCE date for his 16th year. 

No. That's completely false. I'm glad you admitted that this is what you were thinking, because it's easy to correct. It's not at all because it is generally accepted. Only because 100% of the Neo-Babylonian astronomical diaries that touch upon Nebuchadnezzar's reign consistently point to 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. (19th if you include counting his accession year.) There are at least EIGHT separate references to his king years. And ALL of them indicate that 587 was his 18th year -- with no exceptions and no inconsistencies.
(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . .
 

OK. I understand that. Thanks.
And I meant something more like whether the Bible ever contains statements like this:
"And Jerusalem and Judea began going into Exile in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim" "And I will bring this nation into exile starting in the 11th year Zedekiah." You will be free from this Exile when the Persians conquer the Babylonians." "And I will free you from this Exile in the first year of Cyrus" "Two years and 3 months after Cyrus conquered the King of Babylon many of the exiled Jews began returning to their homeland and the Exile was declared completed."  There is something very close to that for the end of the exile, but nothing like it for the beginning of the exile. 
So the "dates" for the start and end of the Exile become a matter of interpretation, not a matter of clear Bible declarations or statements. 
As I said before, we need not worry about the beginning and end of the exile in order to determine the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is the date for the fall of Jerusalem as far as the Bible tells us. Similarly, the 14th year of Nabopolassar is the primary date for the fall of Nineveh, if we were to return to the original topic of this thread. So whether the Exile began exactly at that time, or 20 years earlier or 20 years later, the real goal is to find a BCE date that fits the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 14th year of Nabopolassar. 
But I would like to try to think through your question anyway. It's the one question where you have pushed me to think in a different direction in the past, and I'd like to take it more seriously this time. I'll probably move this part of the discussion to a new topic/thread, so that we'll have a more serious place to discuss it.
For now, I'll start rambling off my thoughts about it. 
I think that it's best to think that the exile began when Nebuchadnezzar first began taking exiles. So we should look for the first time the Bible puts any kind of date on events related to "exiles."
The most obvious "first" verse in that regard at first might appear to be this one:
(Jeremiah 52:28) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.
I've tested about 8 different pieces of Babylonian astronomical evidence and my software programs always puts that in the year 598. The Babylonian Chronicles claim that it happened very late in that year and therefore probably included an early part of 597. So that would be 598/597 BCE.  
The next verse shows that a much smaller number of exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was the same year the city and the temple at Jerusalem was considered destroyed:
(Jeremiah 52:29) . . .In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
All the astronomical evidence I have seen, and that I have tested myself, consistently places that 18th year as 587 BCE.
The next verse shows a smaller number of people taken as exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year:
(Jeremiah 52:30) . . .In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . .
And, of course, all the astronomical evidence places this date as 582 BCE.
But that's not the whole story, of course. The Watchtower publications show that Nebuchadnezzar was marching around Syria-Palestine, so that we know he was near the Judean nation much earlier. The Babylonian Chronicles and the Watchtower publications both agree that this was in the Accession year of Nebuchadnezzar . All the astronomical tablet evidence places that date in the year 605 BCE. The same year that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the King of Egypt (Necho) at Carchemish. The Bible dates that, too:
(Jeremiah 46:2) . . .For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharʹaoh Neʹcho the king of Egypt, who was along the Eu·phraʹtes River and was defeated at Carʹche·mish by King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon in the fourth year of Je·hoiʹa·kim son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah:
But do we have evidence that there were exiles taken from Judah this early in Nebuchadnezzar's regime? 
(Daniel 1:1-6) . . .In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2  In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, . . . Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. . . . They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. 
So the answer is apparently Yes. During that early march through the land, just as both the Watchtower publications admit and the Babylonian Chronicles also claim, there were some exiles taken at that time, too. They were even called by the term exiles.
(Daniel 2:25) . . .Arʹi·och quickly took Daniel in before the king and said to him: “I have found a man of the exiles of Judah who can make known the interpretation to the king.”
Of course, I am quite aware that the Watchtower interpretation doesn't agree with the date mentioned in Daniel 1:1. So the Watchtower changes the meaning of "third year of Jehoiakim" to mean something else.

All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again.
Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC
So please stop asking for something I have claimed is not even there. What if I said I am specifically asking for you to find Isaac Newton's writings in the Quran? If I asked you several times and you couldn't answer, would it be right for me to claim you are just being evasive?  
I don't work backwards from 568 BCE. 
OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. 
It's as if I asked you again and again: I'm asking you specfically: Please don't be evasive and tell me where in the Quran does it specifically include Sir Isaac Newton's writings?
That's good. I meant to say "the book you recently cited from" rather than "the book you most recently cited from." It even occurred to me that I may have noticed a more recent additional citing of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings" which you had already quoted from a few times earlier. After I wrote that phrase, I even wondered if you might try to make an issue of it, but decided it was too trivial to go back and edit. Anyway, I meant the book you recently cited from here, about 16 hours ago from the time I'm writing this:
I like these two books of his. He makes some connections I hadn't seen before. I'm glad you are going through them.
But I agree wholeheartedly with that possibility. So how does agreeing with Dr Wiseman make my argument fall short? Are you saying his argument falls short? Why? It seems like you just want to play some kind of "tit for tat" game instead of having a serious dialogue about the evidence.
There you go again with the same non-sensical question. Wiseman clearly states the same thing I have stated on this forum off and on for over 10 years now, that the portion of the Chronicles covering Nebuchadnezzar falls several years short of his entire reign. In fact there are parts of 33 years that are not in the Chronicle according to Wiseman, from part of the 11th on up to his 43rd year. If he somehow mentioned that something from his 18th year was there after all, that would be quite a contradiction for a scholar. And he has easily earned the right to be called one, not like me.
Exactly. Now it seems you get it. 

All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again.
Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC
So please stop asking for something I have claimed is not even there. What if I said I am specifically asking for you to find Isaac Newton's writings in the Quran? If I asked you several times and you couldn't answer, would it be right for me to claim you are just being evasive?  
I don't work backwards from 568 BCE. 
OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. 
It's as if I asked you again and again: I'm asking you specfically: Please don't be evasive and tell me where in the Quran does it specifically include Sir Isaac Newton's writings?
That's good. I meant to say "the book you recently cited from" rather than "the book you most recently cited from." It even occurred to me that I may have noticed a more recent additional citing of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings" which you had already quoted from a few times earlier. After I wrote that phrase, I even wondered if you might try to make an issue of it, but decided it was too trivial to go back and edit. Anyway, I meant the book you recently cited from here, about 16 hours ago from the time I'm writing this:
I like these two books of his. He makes some connections I hadn't seen before. I'm glad you are going through them.
But I agree wholeheartedly with that possibility. So how does agreeing with Dr Wiseman make my argument fall short? Are you saying his argument falls short? Why? It seems like you just want to play some kind of "tit for tat" game instead of having a serious dialogue about the evidence.
There you go again with the same non-sensical question. Wiseman clearly states the same thing I have stated on this forum off and on for over 10 years now, that the portion of the Chronicles covering Nebuchadnezzar falls several years short of his entire reign. In fact there are parts of 33 years that are not in the Chronicle according to Wiseman, from part of the 11th on up to his 43rd year. If he somehow mentioned that something from his 18th year was there after all, that would be quite a contradiction for a scholar. And he has easily earned the right to be called one, not like me.
Exactly. Now it seems you get it. 

Yes, it does. There shouldn't be any confusion. It's a simple calculation. I'm planning on showing @xero exactly which document he can use, and how he can check it with easy to obtain astronomy software.
And after his accession year is calculated, there is a way to double-check independently by using the actual date provided in the Insight book for that rare portion of the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles where the Watchtower has not added the 20-year gap. From that point you can use the information taken from two other Babylonian documents --without even requiring astronomy software -- and see that it will easily provide the same accession year for Nabopolassar of 626 BCE. 
And for good measure, one could even then take an additional Babylonian inscription (stele), and double-check again using simple math, without requiring more astronomy software, and get the same year.
But you do need to use the software at least once to start with at least one year within Nabopolassar's reign. From any known, it's simple to figure out his accession year. After all, if you know his first year was 625 BCE, then it's obvious his accession year must be 626. If you knew his 11th year was 615, then it would still be obvious you could calculate his accession year as 626. The best Babylonian tablet gives us the exact BCE date for his 16th year. 

All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again.
Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC
So please stop asking for something I have claimed is not even there. What if I said I am specifically asking for you to find Isaac Newton's writings in the Quran? If I asked you several times and you couldn't answer, would it be right for me to claim you are just being evasive?  
I don't work backwards from 568 BCE. 
OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. 
It's as if I asked you again and again: I'm asking you specfically: Please don't be evasive and tell me where in the Quran does it specifically include Sir Isaac Newton's writings?
That's good. I meant to say "the book you recently cited from" rather than "the book you most recently cited from." It even occurred to me that I may have noticed a more recent additional citing of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings" which you had already quoted from a few times earlier. After I wrote that phrase, I even wondered if you might try to make an issue of it, but decided it was too trivial to go back and edit. Anyway, I meant the book you recently cited from here, about 16 hours ago from the time I'm writing this:
I like these two books of his. He makes some connections I hadn't seen before. I'm glad you are going through them.
But I agree wholeheartedly with that possibility. So how does agreeing with Dr Wiseman make my argument fall short? Are you saying his argument falls short? Why? It seems like you just want to play some kind of "tit for tat" game instead of having a serious dialogue about the evidence.
There you go again with the same non-sensical question. Wiseman clearly states the same thing I have stated on this forum off and on for over 10 years now, that the portion of the Chronicles covering Nebuchadnezzar falls several years short of his entire reign. In fact there are parts of 33 years that are not in the Chronicle according to Wiseman, from part of the 11th on up to his 43rd year. If he somehow mentioned that something from his 18th year was there after all, that would be quite a contradiction for a scholar. And he has easily earned the right to be called one, not like me.
Exactly. Now it seems you get it. 

All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again.
Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC
So please stop asking for something I have claimed is not even there. What if I said I am specifically asking for you to find Isaac Newton's writings in the Quran? If I asked you several times and you couldn't answer, would it be right for me to claim you are just being evasive?  
I don't work backwards from 568 BCE. 
OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. 
It's as if I asked you again and again: I'm asking you specfically: Please don't be evasive and tell me where in the Quran does it specifically include Sir Isaac Newton's writings?
That's good. I meant to say "the book you recently cited from" rather than "the book you most recently cited from." It even occurred to me that I may have noticed a more recent additional citing of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings" which you had already quoted from a few times earlier. After I wrote that phrase, I even wondered if you might try to make an issue of it, but decided it was too trivial to go back and edit. Anyway, I meant the book you recently cited from here, about 16 hours ago from the time I'm writing this:
I like these two books of his. He makes some connections I hadn't seen before. I'm glad you are going through them.
But I agree wholeheartedly with that possibility. So how does agreeing with Dr Wiseman make my argument fall short? Are you saying his argument falls short? Why? It seems like you just want to play some kind of "tit for tat" game instead of having a serious dialogue about the evidence.
There you go again with the same non-sensical question. Wiseman clearly states the same thing I have stated on this forum off and on for over 10 years now, that the portion of the Chronicles covering Nebuchadnezzar falls several years short of his entire reign. In fact there are parts of 33 years that are not in the Chronicle according to Wiseman, from part of the 11th on up to his 43rd year. If he somehow mentioned that something from his 18th year was there after all, that would be quite a contradiction for a scholar. And he has easily earned the right to be called one, not like me.
Exactly. Now it seems you get it. 

Sorry about that. What have I denied that you presented? Examples? Just one?
Well you should if that's what I'm doing. But I don't think it will mean as much if you won't produce a single example.

I AM going to try and work my way through all 11 pages (so far) of this soon....

I caught some flak on Facebook over the post, similar to yours, as though I was suggesting any black screen is a PIMO. I wasn’t. One person confessed to a certain form of social phobia but was very much in the program, saying how much better Zoom was than the old phone lines. To him, I said,
“It all works. Lots of reasons to prefer Zoom. I didn’t mean this to be a judgmental post. I just agree that among the constant black screen no-shows there are probably some who have tired of the whole program but don’t want others to think so. I didn’t mean to suggest it was anyone’s duty to figure out who was who.”
Another thought it not good to be suspicious of one’s brothers. I replied, “This is well-stated, [in both cases, I addressed them by name]. Suspicion was not what I meant to encourage. ‘Open to the possibility’ was more my point. And even when the latter is the case, that doesn’t mean a person won’t benefit from a hand of friendship. Thanks for commenting as you have.”
Two persons didn’t know what PIMO was, which I don’t think is very healthy—a little like the Russian Supreme Court refusing to look at what everyone else had seen, video-recorded evidence of incriminating material being planted by authorities. Of course, that is not to blame those friends. You’ll never hear the term PIMO at the Kingdom Hall or via the literature. It hampers people to be so uninformed about what large swaths of others are up to.
I think some were confused by the question itself. I took it off Quora, a social media site which has (I think) taken to generating many ridiculous questions about JWs (though, this wasn’t one of them) through AI, (sigh—which some brothers appear to take as though sincere questions from interested persons)
Yeah, I know the feeling. The trouble is, you almost can’t, since we are primed to overreact. 
I see you don’t keep up with modern science. I believe several genders have been discovered in which they do just that.
 
Hey, this is pretty good. And isn’t that Many Miles 8 rows back, 4th from the left? 
I hope the brothers don’t harrumph too much over it. It’s not like they could endorse it, but it is possible to say, ‘You know, there’s a place to learn more about this Jehovah.’ What to one person is not being swept along by the fads and vagaries of men is to another just being a bunch of fuddy-daddies.