JW Insider

Not just the younger ones. But I don't think they are necessarily mentally out in the sense that they don't believe anymore (and live double lives) but because they get bored. Perhaps PIMB?
Also reminds me of an anecdote where a teacher was asked how he knew a student was looking at his phone when they were being so stealth about it. He said: no one smiles at their crotch.
 

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, . . .
 

Already answered. I don't know where you got the idea that Wiseman ever cited the 18-19 year number. Look back at my posts. I said Wiseman uses the chronology that puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years at 587 and 586. The Chronicles themselves do not contain any BCE-numbered years. They include Nebuchadnezzar's reign from the accession ("zero-th") year to his 1st year, his 2nd, etc., on up to his 11th year. Wiseman calls this 11th year 594 BCE and he elsewhere acknowledges that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years.  

He also dates his 37th year to 568 BCE:

 
So, yes indeed, Wiseman uses the chronology that puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587 BCE and his 19th year in 586 BCE. Can you calculate some OTHER BCE year that Wiseman's chronology indicates for those regnal years?
You should also check the book you most recently cited from Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon) which states the following:

Note that this quote above from page 11 gives the reference to Jeremiah and shows again that Wiseman uses the chronology that puts the destruction of Jerusalem (which Jeremiah says is in the 18th year) as 587 BCE. 
In fact, Wiseman starts the initial siege late in the year 588 so that the entire operation ends in the 18th year 587 BCE (using Nisan to Nisan reckoning), but the footnote also included below shows that by Tishri to Tishri reckoning some have argued for 586:


And on page 38 and 39 Wiseman cites the verse from Jeremiah 52:30 that I quoted above and naturally assigns that 23rd year to 582.
So it should be pretty obvious that he consistently used the same chronology that puts years 18 and 19 at 587 and 586 BCE. 

This was the chronology that Wiseman himself provided on page vi, page 2 and page 32 of "Chronology of Chaldean Kings." Wiseman, as I have said, doesn't use the Babylonian Chronicle to produce "BCE" dates. Neither do I. It doesn't contain any such dates. The point was about the chronology he accepts, and that I accept, and that you reject. After all these studies in 1956, you can see that he continues to support this same chronology in 1985. As I said before, that chronology is not in the Chronicles, it's in the astronomical diaries and astronomical tables, many of which were originally produced at the very time that Nebuchadnezzar himself was alive.
I am not interpreting it. I let my astronomy software interpret it. If it is flawed, it means that the 539 date for Cyrus' conquering of Babylon is also flawed because the software gets that perfectly, too. And I've checked it against several different reports from others who use different astronomy software. It perfectly matches the other software too.
It's misleading to continue acting as if you can find 587 in the Chronicles. It's in the Babylonian astronomy diaries and tables. Just because the astronomy tables happen to fit several of the descriptions about what happened in the accession year, first year, seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar doesn't mean that this is where the BCE dates come from. There are no BCE dates in the Chronicles. 
As I said, I don't have to consider the Chronicles, or the military campaigns, or "my account" of anything. I only have to look at the Bible where it says that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year. Then the astronomical tablets tell me that those years were 587 and 586. They also tell me, of course, that his 7th year was 598. 
If you think the Bible was wrong and that the exiles taken in his 7th year refers to the full destruction of Jerusalem, that's your prerogative. If you think the Bible was wrong when it says he sieged and destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th and 19th year, that is also your prerogative. If you want to mix up those two events and add something to the evidence based on speculation that's also your prerogative. 
You mean the numbers of exiles that the Bible mentioned? Maybe they only counted the most elite of the exiles. It doesn't matter, I still accept the Bible's account. 
Same here. It's also what my astronomy software gives me for the beginning of Nabopolassar's reign. I see no reason or purpose for any misinterpretation, either. Why would anyone want to "misinterpret" those years? Unless of course they need his 14th year to be 632 when Wiseman's calculation (and my astronomy software) will give us 612. And I can think of only one place where that interpretation is found. 

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 have to point out that your continued insults about me using manipulative language appear to still be empty claims where you make the claim but won't point to any actually manipulative language. Unless of course you just mean that any statements or evidence you don't with to deal with are "manipulating" you towards accepting statements or evidence you don't want to deal with. I've mentioned before that some of your insults that that don't make sense at face value actually do make perfect sense if I consider them to be psychological "projections" of concerns about yourself onto others.
There are hundreds of previous examples shown on the forum, but in this case, you've given a couple more. Hopefully you can explain them in a way that doesn't infer your own projections onto others of whatever you feel is more true of yourself. 
For example: I have often been insulted here for acknowledging [so-called] irrefutable evidence presented by scholars, yet here you say I am choosing NOT to do so. You indicate that I believe Dr. Wiseman is NOT a scholarly authority, even though I am the one who is FULLY accepting what he is saying and yet you are the one REJECTING his chronology.
Do you think these insults of yours really make for a mature conversation? 

Should be easy to check. Let's see if Dr Wiseman believes that the 18th and 19th years of King Nebuchadnezzar landed in 587 and 586 BCE. 
I see that he puts Neb's 1st year in 605. So his 18th year would be 605-18=587. So 587 BCE. That would make his 19th year 586 BCE. (605-19=586). So far, Wiseman agrees with the evidenced chronology of Neo-Babylon. Just as I would expect.

Also the Bible says that in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year he took exiles from Jerusalem.
(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. The 7th year is not missing from the Chronicles. So let's see what year Wiseman thinks that is:

So WIseman identifies the 7th year with 598/7 BCE. That would make the 19th year only 12 years later. 598-12=586.
So again, Wiseman agrees that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586. The Bible identifies the 19th year with the fall and destruction of Jerusalem. 
When Wiseman has trouble pinning it down to either Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year, that's not because of the Neo-Babylonian Chronology. It's because of the fact that the Bible presents both of those years: the 18th and the 19th. As you can see from the scriptures from Jeremiah 32 and 2 Kings 25 that I referenced in previous posts.
-----
While we're at it, I think you've already noted that he also agrees with 612 BCE for the fall of Nineveh

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, . . .
 

For anyone else who is interested, two of Wiseman's books that have been quoted here by George are very relevant to some of these issues.
Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum by Wiseman, D. J. (Donald John) Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon by Wiseman, D. J. (Donald John) Both books can be found at archive.org where you only need a free account and can usually check out the books for an hour at a time with no issues. 
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofchal0000unse/page/44/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/nebuchadrezzarba0000wise/page/n9/mode/2up You can also find free PDFs of each although I doubt this is a legal way of accessing them. Here's one:
https://etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/20337.pdf The actual Babylonian Chronicles in translation are available at livius.org such as the example below:
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-3-fall-of-nineveh-chronicle/ There are literally hundreds of fairly relevant documents that show up on JSTOR or specific Biblical/Archaeology/History Journals. I think it's still possible to get a free limited access which gets to many of them, but not all. (It's something they started during COVID.) If anyone finds an article they want from JSTOR, those with access are not supposed to share those articles. But if anyone here needs a specific page copied from one of those articles, I have full access to all JSTOR documents through an alumni account. That account also gets me full access to other academic journals, too, but I won't break the rules by copying more than one page at a time, and only for discussion purposes. This should keep it within "fair use" limits. 
Examples are:
Chronology of the Medes, from the Reign of Deioces to the Reign of Darius, the Son of Hystaspes, or Darius the Mede
I. W. Bosanquet   In fact, if you can get to the search bar, but can't get to the actual document, that's where I can probably help out. Here's an example showing just the first of 1,399 results for a search on "Chronology of the Fall of Nineveh:"

That's the same thing I always say about 607 BCE. I have no issue with the date at all. In fact, I think it's a fairly good date with which to start the 70 years of Jeremiah 25. It can't be more than a couple of years off. In fact, the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book pretty much indicates that the end of the 70 years of Jeremiah 25 was in 539 when Babylon's power "crumbles." That would start them in 609. But full Persian domination as a world empire might be considered to not have started until Carchemish in 605. 607 is right in the middle, so it seems like a pretty good place to start the '70 years for Babylon' as Jeremiah calls it. 
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
“These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) . . . since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. 
 
I think it's telling that no one seems to like the direct and excellent evidence for identifying the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, but would rather try to mix in the Babylonian Chronicles and various tablets that recount military triumphs. 
The Bible account makes it clear that it happened in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
So if you don't have a problem with it, which year(s) of Nebuchadnezzar did you think 587/6 BCE was? Which year did you think 606 BCE was?

George88: You told me I was sharing distorted views, and I asked you what they were. You answered with . . . 
Since I have never said anything about that particular gap between the Babylonian and the Persian empire, who is making the distortion? If it's not me, who were you talking about when you said I was sharing distorted views? Are you saying you have NO examples of views I have distorted, but that you made the claim anyway? 
This is in full agreement with what I said very early on in the discussion. That when most Witnesses are aware of the direction the evidence leads to, they no longer wish to consider the specifics, and prefer to divert to other types of evidence. It seems like a kind of fear. I don't see a need to fear it. For me, the tradition about chronology that we have latched onto here is not the core of what we stand for as Jehovah's Witnesses. It's fine for any of us to believe it if we wish, but we shouldn't get too attached to it, because it's not the core of our worship, our love for God and neighbor, the ransom, nor does it change anything about the last days or the good news of the Kingdom.

It may very well have been. But if you don't have the Bible to tell you the exact beginning or ending of that event, why don't you go ahead and use what the Bible DOES say? That is, find the BCE equivalent for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.  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. 
 

Thanks for admitting that. If one is looking for the date for the destruction of Jerusalem you can therefore ignore the Exile. The Bible never says it started exactly in a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar, and it never says that it ended in exactly a specific year of King Cyrus. The Watchtower claims it was not 539 when he captured Babylon, nor in 538 which was the first year of Cyrus over Babylon, but in 537, and they may have good reasons for interpreting that way. Prior Watchtowers placed Cyrus accession year in 537, and thus put his first year in 536, and used this method. If Russell had used the current Watchtower's methodology of adding several months after the beginning of that first regnal year, they would have been claiming that the Exile ended in 535 BCE. But instead they used the beginning of the first regnal year which they thought at the time was 536. From 536 they counted back 70 years and got 606 as a date for the fall of Jerusalem.
But all that is unnecessary and required interpretation instead of methodology.   
What do we have is the Bible's statement that the destruction and fall of Jerusalem was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. So we can ignore the undefined 70 year exile and just use the Bible's statements. 
If you want to describe a methodology, just consider the most direct and obvious way to find the 18th and/or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar? 

What does it matter what critics say? We should focus on the evidence.
As you have shown. Making a dogmatic claim as you just did proves nothing. Just as you cannot prove that the fall didn't happen in 587 BCE. 

I'm surprised, but you just pretty much admitted the entire schema and methodology of the Watchtower tradition. As you say, it starts by looking at the secular NB chronology, but determines that, no matter what the NB Chronology says, the fall of Jerusalem must have happened in 607 BCE (else the 1914 prediction fails). So when they see that 607 is 20 years off from the NB Chronology they merely "fine-tune" the entire NB Chronology timeline by adding 20 years. 
This is exactly correct. Thank you.

Why would anyone want to try something as silly as trying to disprove a negative? That would be like someone asking if you could disprove 587 BCE or disprove 586 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You would look foolish to try. 
Exactly correct. Thanks. So it meaningless to keep bringing up his name unless one has the motive of trying to attach the label "apostate" to a rehash of research that has been around for over 100 years, completely separate from Witnesses or ex-Witnesses. 

I'm surprised, but you just pretty much admitted the entire schema and methodology of the Watchtower tradition. As you say, it starts by looking at the secular NB chronology, but determines that, no matter what the NB Chronology says, the fall of Jerusalem must have happened in 607 BCE (else the 1914 prediction fails). So when they see that 607 is 20 years off from the NB Chronology they merely "fine-tune" the entire NB Chronology timeline by adding 20 years. 
This is exactly correct. Thank you.

The Bible does not give a BCE start date or a BCE end date for the Jewish/Babylonian exile. The Bible, which I consider excellent evidence, says that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. And, fortunately, there is excellent evidence for the BCE date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You can ignore all else, even though the biblical and historical facts ALSO provide excellent and consistent support for the correct BCE dates.  
Not for me. I couldn't care less whether COJ found no evidence, 17 lines of evidence, or 100 lines. It's not about COJ. And it shouldn't be for anyone else, I'd think. Bringing him up is just a way to say that ONE of the THOUSANDS of persons who support 587/586 is an apostate for having supported it, too. So it's just an easy deflection and diversion that "poisons the well" or attempts the ad hominem. If you could provide a good ad hominem for the other THOUSANDS of people who have carefully looked at the evidence then you might be onto something. But I'd still prefer looking at the evidence and not worry about specific individuals you might like or dislike.
If you prefer 586 then say so. If you prefer 587 say so. In the past, just has you are apparently doing here, you always bring up this same argument that because it's either one or the other then it can't be either. To me, that's a very specious argument. 

The Bible does not give a BCE start date or a BCE end date for the Jewish/Babylonian exile. The Bible, which I consider excellent evidence, says that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. And, fortunately, there is excellent evidence for the BCE date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You can ignore all else, even though the biblical and historical facts ALSO provide excellent and consistent support for the correct BCE dates.  
Not for me. I couldn't care less whether COJ found no evidence, 17 lines of evidence, or 100 lines. It's not about COJ. And it shouldn't be for anyone else, I'd think. Bringing him up is just a way to say that ONE of the THOUSANDS of persons who support 587/586 is an apostate for having supported it, too. So it's just an easy deflection and diversion that "poisons the well" or attempts the ad hominem. If you could provide a good ad hominem for the other THOUSANDS of people who have carefully looked at the evidence then you might be onto something. But I'd still prefer looking at the evidence and not worry about specific individuals you might like or dislike.
If you prefer 586 then say so. If you prefer 587 say so. In the past, just has you are apparently doing here, you always bring up this same argument that because it's either one or the other then it can't be either. To me, that's a very specious argument. 

Let's hope someone won't be afraid to point out an example, rather than just making empty claims.

Do you know another explanation for why the Watchtower publications present the year 632 instead of 612 as the date for the fall of Nineveh? It's true that the Watchtower never admits the reason they added 20 years to the evidenced date, but they did explain the reason they add 20 years to the 587 date. It's pretty obvious to me that it's for the same reason. You can't change one date without consequences to the surrounding dates. You just have to figure out where you want to start and stop adding the 20 years. That's something the Watchtower publications have NEVER explained.
Claiming someone's explanation "lacks comprehension" without being able to say what specifically was wrong gets us nowhere. It's just an insult that might even give credence to a suspicion that the person trying that tactic can't point out where it's illogical. Until you can, I take it as a tacit admission that my explanation might just as easily be correct as incorrect. You can't say you made any point "precisely" in the past either when you never were able to even try to make a vague point, only an insult, or a false claim that someone was relying heavily on a "person." I rely absolutely ZERO on COJ. That would be stupid. I rely only on evidence.
 The Babylonian Chronicles contain only relative dates. I think we generally already agree on those relative dates. I would never try to prove a BCE date with a relative date. Also your insult about COJ being a regrettable individual for doing just that is a misdirection. I read his book and he NEVER, EVER claims that the Babylonian Chronicles validate 587 over 607. I'm sure you already agree with COJ about the relative dates presented in those Chronicles. If not, you are free to show me where you disagree with the dates provided within those Chronicles. 
Again, if you can't specifically show where, I have to assume you can't. This is why I say that empty insults don't help us make any progress on the topic.
Don't you think there is always a chance that someone might be able to come along and show why these "incorrect perceptions" are incorrect? What you said gives the impression that you are simply afraid of the evidence. If these were my own private beliefs however I would agree. But these are hardly private beliefs. They are based on the difference between what the Watchtower has publicly claimed and what literally HUNDREDS of other publications have already publicly claimed. There is nothing private about it. There should be nothing to hide.
Not only that, the Watchtower itself has encouraged the interest in this claim: 
*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
This is the first of two articles in consecutive issues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarly questions surrounding the date of the destruction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part series presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzled some readers.
“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?”
SO WROTE one of our readers. But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people.
 

No problem. I have found that to be true of most fellow Witnesses when it comes to this topic. It's not comfortable to engage when you know where the evidence is heading. 
But for others, I will still go ahead and try to respond to your comments about the evidence and questions you have already asked of me.

It absolutely WAS my intention to discuss evidence regarding the 20-year difference that the Watchtower has been forced to add to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology prior to 539 (technically 556, see below). It even goes back further to the dates given to the entire Judean and Israelite kingdom.
The most significant of the dates for the Watchtower during this period would be the change from 587 to 607, which is the entire purpose of changing all these other dates you will find specific references for in "Insight" and various other Watchtower articles:
The fall of Nineveh (from 612 to 632) The the 14th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 612 to 632) The the 17th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 609 to 629) The death of Josiah (changed from 609 to 629) The 21st year of Nabopolassar (changed from 605 to 625) The last major battle at Carchemish (changed from 605 to 625) The 1st regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 604 to 624) The 7th regnal year "ending" of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 597 to 617) The 19th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 587 to 607) The 43rd regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 562 to 582) Accession year of Evil-Merodach (changed from 562 to 582) Beginning of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 556 to 556) End of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 539 to 539) Note also that, as I mentioned before, these changed dates are directly tied to the Judean (and Israelite) kings, so that the chronology links are changed by 20 years all the way back to David. You can see this in the following Insight quote, that also makes it appear that the most prestigious reference books agree with the Watchtower chronology, even though it's false. Note how the Watchtower adds its changed dates right there within the quotes from Grayson.
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu . . .
When you add something to direct quotes and don't clarify or admit that the brackets weren't in the original, it is considered very bad form or even academic dishonesty.
The other thing to notice is that the Watchtower publications force the 20-year gap into the smallest possible reigns of only 2 kings Evil-Merodach who reigned only a few months, and Neriglissar who reigned only 4 years. Unfortunately, for the Watchtower's chronology, the greater part of the Neo-Babylonian years from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus are already ruled out by the Bible itself, forcing the Watchtower to try to squeeze that extra 20 years into the most obvious place where it could never fit and would have been the most conspicuous if it actually existed.
I think that's very relevant information to start out with for anyone who believes there is any merit to the reasons that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years. (612 to 632 BCE)
 

If you want to have a serious conversation (and not a "talk show" as a certain V.Putin might call it) then I am quite willing. As long as we continue to discuss evidence rather than personalities and faults and supposed expertise and supposed authority. I don't claim expertise or authority on this topic, but I have long been amazed now at the availability of so much consistent evidence when I used to have the impression that it was all a mess and so much of it contradicted other evidence, and was therefore useless to study. 
In response to what you say above, I did NOT intend to only mention you. In fact I said: "
Pudgy was the one who joined the conversation only to say he wasn't interested in it, and that would therefore include not being interested in facts or evidence about it, one way or another. I usually expect Pudgy to join a conversation like this mostly to make some points about the Democratic Party, and throw in a few memes or cartoons, some of which are his own making and, yes, also to trade insults with you. I have no problem with such additions to topics I have started, but it probably isn't fair to @xero to ask a question and then see most of the responses filled up with unrelated insults.
I admit I had you in mind for some of my other observations, based on some of your statements above, but I'm quite willing to start fresh if you wish.
And I don't think I am any paragon of virtue in this regard. Look at some of the old "back-and-forth"  between me and scholar_jw, or posts referring to Furuli when it comes to this particular topic. I don't control myself very well when I believe I'm seeing academic dishonesty and possibly purposeful diversions and fallacies. In this regard, I understand where you might also be coming from.

I you were directing that statement at me, I am not resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC.
It's a fact that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years from 612 to 632 for only ONE purpose: in order to support the change for the fall of Jerusalem by 20 years from 587 to 607.
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end. . . .
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) 
 
I could be wrong, but so far, every time a Witness brings up the difference between Watchtower chronology and the standard accepted chronology, they are invariably referring to the 20-year gap that the Watchtower chronology creates for itself.  @xero can correct me if this is a misconception on my part. 
Put simply, the Watchtower chronology takes every Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian-era date for which there is archaeological or historical evidence prior to 539 BCE and simply adds 20 years to it. This is only done in order to try to resolve (or even "cover up") the fact that there is excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE but the Watchtower needs it to be 607 BCE. Otherwise they would have to dismiss the idea that the Bible "predicted" 1914. I think the GB will not be able to extricate themselves very easily from this tradition. Even though the Watchtower has claimed that OTHER dates they promoted were even more sure than 1914, they have dropped those dates. Russell indicated that 1874 was more sure and anchored date than 1914 but that date was finally dropped. Rutherford claimed that there was more proof and evidence for 1925 than for 1914, but that date was also dropped. Therefore, the only "sure" date left, then, is 1914 and it would likely be too much of a disappointment for most Witnesses to have to admit we were wrong all along about this supposed "prophecy" -- the only "sure" dated prophecy we have left. 
Those with good access to that evidence often have trouble knowing what to do with it. So when the topic comes up they try to "run interference" by brining up people instead of evidence. (One person, R.Furuli, as a last resort against the evidence published by COJ, did try to run interference against the evidence itself.) But normally, from those who have tried to understand the evidence, you instantly start seeing phrases about people JWI, xero, COJ (Carl O Jonsson), apostates, rather than any real attempt to present evidence.
Did you really think people would fall for the idea that it was Carl Jonsson who "introduced" this nonsense when it was already known by the preponderance of existing evidence since the early 1800's. And now that even more consistent and corroborating evidence has been found, the chronology is now agreed upon by the scholars who have looked into that evidence for over 100 years already. The Watchtower was already commenting on people who wrote to Russell and Rutherford about this same evidence long before COJ was born.  
So it's not about people and their flaws or even scholars and experts who agree with one another. It's about the evidence. 
That said, you did make a point or two in this thread about evidence and since some of those points were directed at me personally, so I will respond.