JW Insider

Ring ring . . . 
“Hello?”
“Good evening, madam, this is the AllenGeorge Fire Department. Are there any fires raging in your area?”
”No, I don’t think so. Only that pesky kid JWI roasting potatoes again. He has a little campfire going in the back yard, but it’s going out.”
”It is??!!! This is serious! Why didn’t you call? We’re on our way! Alphonse, crank up the siren so everyone hears! George, grab the accelerant! There’s not a moment to lose!”
 

Hardly. I only researched what I was assigned to research. The most leeway I was given was when I had to look up and review what had been said previously about certain specific doctrines. We didn't have electronic searching of anything, or the Internet. So if Brother BS, or RL, or JN asked me to look into what we once said about house-to-house, or the literal vs the figurative heart, or a partial 70 CE fulfillment of Matthew 24, or certain medical advice, or Abaddon, or Evolution, or the Creative Days, or the Prodigal Son, then I might get a chance to read dozens of articles going all the way back through the 1930's. We would find a lot of places where the WT Publications Index needed updating, too. We didn't actually care about going back to Russell. Mostly, the brothers only cared about references going back to 1935, sometimes 1931. Then we might see if our commentary referencing Bible dictionaries and lexicons still held up with the latest versions of those references. And the Aid Book was still producing new questions to look up and double-check for accuracy. 
I was never assigned a research project about chronology, or parousia, or the generation, or Gentile Times, or the 70 years, or Babylonian kings. The closest to that was a double-check of how often anyone had written about a partial or minor fulfillment of Matthew 24 in the first century. And one time I had to look up if we had been consistent about saying that the "Lord's Day" of Revelation 1:10 had been the start of 1914. But obviously it was never a matter of questioning 1914. When COJ's manuscript came up, it was a total surprise to me that anyone would question 1914, although I soon learned that Sydlik, Schroeder, Chitty and Swingle were questioning certain aspects of it. And I soon learned COJ's name from Rusk and Schroeder, but I thought they were going to find someone to respond to the document.
You seem to have not understood much of what Adam Rutherford was saying, then. Adam Rutherford's information is basically a confirmation of the ideas of COJ and every authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Being only two years off from the astronomically evidenced numbers is hardly a problem unless you also want to incorporate the dozens of astronomical readings. But Adam Rutherford stuck with the relative chronology but mostly ignored the "absolute" chronology that the astronomy readings would have given.
With respect to the relative chronology, Adam Rutherford, confirms COJ's understanding and that of every person currently considered an authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Adam Rutherford agrees completely with me, too, on the relative chronology. If he was using the Babylonian Chronicles correctly then he is saying that COJ is right, and the Watchtower is wrong. His information would mostly just confirm COJ, not challenge him. COJ goes further and takes into consideration the rest of the astronomical evidence which Rutherford also nearly had right -- only two years off. Rutherford indicates that the current Watchtower is 22 years off in the absolute, and 20 years off in the relative. 
His information could only have been use to challenge and refute the Watchtower.

The "People's Pulpit" association was the original name that was then changed to "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc."

I'm not sure why anyone would say it is crucial to emphasize that the WTS generally accepts Bishop Ussher's chronology by adding either 19, 20, 21 or 22 years to everything prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and generally accepts everything (without an adjustment) from about the time of the Jews returning to their homeland after Cyrus' decree freed them from Babylon. 
Naturally, this means that Bishop Ussher used 609 for the death of Josiah, and 588 for the destruction of the Temple, and the the WTS adds 20 and 19 years to those dates. The Watchtower, of course, uses 629 for the death of Josiah and continues to use 607 for the destruction of the Temple in order to make 1914 still work.
But this is about as "crucial" as saying that Bishop Ussher agrees within a year or so of COJ, or me, or perhaps 100 Bible commentators. Basically, it merely admits that the WTS generally accepts Ussher's relative chronology. Bishop Ussher turned his relative Bible chronology into an absolute chronology by using Babylonian Greek and Roman sources to fix the BC date of Evil Merodach, the successoor of Nebuchadnezzar at 562 BC. Per Wikipedia's source:
The Watchtower Society adds about 20 years that date, so that our "Ussher" date for every year prior to Evil-Merodach adds about 20, 21 or 22 years.
So Ussher uses the dates evidenced by astronomy for the period of the destruction and Exile. COJ does too. Adam Rutherford does too. As does Wiseman, and as do all the resources the WTS quotes from when discussing the period. This should not be surprising. 
Ussher stays within a year or two of all the astronomically evidenced dates. The only way Adam Rutherford found a way to stay within two years of the astronomically evidenced dates (and still keep 1914) is to reject 607 as the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and to reject Russell's and the Watchtower's date for the destruction of Jerusalem. He starts the counting of the 70 years and the 2,520 years (the 7 times) with the fall of Assyria instead of the fall of Jerusalem. That way he can continue to use 607. In this I would agree with him about 607 (within a year or two). I also agree with his date for the destruction of Jerusalem (within a year or two).

There were big differences between the Bible Students and the Christian Science religion. The pyramid that was built near Mary Baker Eddy's birthplace was built in December 1918, by the same person who designed her cemetery memorial, but not officially sanctioned by the religion itself. The pyramid built near Russell's gravesite was built in 1921. Both have since been destroyed. 

Both had a metal box buried deep within to contain the writers' artifacts, and both had plaques on the 4 sides. One of “Eddy’s” plaques had “The new order of the ages” in Latin. 
Anything that Mary Baker Eddy had said about the Great Pyramid has been downplayed, and in fact, no one has found more than a sentence or two that she ever said about it. But there have been claims by those outside her religion that she supported pyramidology. 
In 1921, some Christian Scientists recommended pilgrimages to the site, but the church discouraged it, reminding people that Eddy didn't want people celebrating her birthday, and she had spoken out against mystic cults and "spiritualism" and "theosophy" that the pyramid apparently represented to some.

Here is the context and the letter from Smyth that Russell published in Volume 3 (Thy Kingdom Come), praising Russell's "originality" and "magnificently" worded passages. It also praised Russell's accuracy to within an inch, even though Russell later rescinded a couple of these measurements and changed them by up to 41 inches. Notice that Russell calls the Pyramid, not just Jehovah's Witness, but also Jehovah's PROPHET:
THE
CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY
OF
GOD'S STONE WITNESS
AND
PROPHET
THE GREAT PYRAMID IN
EGYPT
 
A KINDLY COMMENT ON THIS CHAPTER
WHEN IN MANUSCRIPT, FROM THE PEN
OF THE ESTEEMED
PROF. C. PIAZZI SMYTH, F.R.S.E., F.R.A.S.
EX-ASTRONOMER ROYAL FOR SCOTLAND
Brother William M. Wright, on learning that this chapter on the Great Pyramid was written, requested that he might have the reading of it before it would be put into type, as he had already considerable knowledge of the Pyramid. This we gladly granted, assuring him of our desire for all the criticism possible. After reading the MS., Bro. Wright concluded that, as we desired criticism, the higher the standing of the critic the better. Accordingly he made a typewriter copy of the MS., and by permission mailed it to Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth, who is generally accorded a greater knowledge of the Great Pyramid's construction and measurements than any other man in the world, requesting that he examine the MS. carefully and note upon it any criticism he might have to offer in the interest of the truth. The Professor's answer to that letter, together with the MS. copy sent him, which bore his marks of criticism, when received were sent to the author. We thank Bro. Wright and Prof. Smyth for their kindness, and have followed the corrections indicated; which, however, only three in all, we were pleased to note were not of special importance. Only one of the criticisms was upon measurements, and it showed a variance of only one inch, which we gladly corrected.
Thinking it might be interesting to our readers we give below
Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth's Letter
Clova, Ripon, England, Dec. 21, 1890
Wm. M. Wright, Esq.,
Dear Sir: I have been rather longer than I could have wished in looking over the MS. of your friend, C. T. Russell of Allegheny, Pa., but I have now completed a pretty careful examination, word by word. And that was the least I could do, when you so kindly took the pains to send it with such care between boards by registered parcel, with every page flat, and indited by the typewriter in place of the hand.
At first I could only find slips of the said typewriter, but as I progressed through the pages, the powers, the specialties and the originalities of the Author came out magnificently; and there were not a few passages I should have been glad to take a copy of for quotation, with name, in the next possible edition of my own Pyramid book. But of course I did nothing of that sort, and shall wait with perfect patience and in most thankful mood of mind for when the author of Scripture Studies shall choose his own time for publishing. So I merely remark here that he is both good and new in much that he says on the chronology of various parts of the Pyramid, especially the First Ascending Passage and its granite plug; on the Grand Gallery, as illustrating the Lord's life; on the parallelisms between the King's Chamber and its granite, against the Tabernacle and its gold; and generally on the confirmations or close agreements between Scripture and the Great Pyramid, well commented on.
In the meanwhile, it seems that I am indebted to you for your kind gift of long ago of the first two volumes of Scripture Studies. I did not at the time get further than the first half of the first volume, finding the matter, as I thought, not quite so new as I had expected. But after having profited, as I hope, so much by a thorough reading of this advanced pyramid chapter of the third volume, I must take up the first two volumes again, de novo.
The parcel will go back between its boards, registered. I remain, with many thanks,
Yours respectfully,
C. Piazzi Smyth

Calling assertions unfounded when you know they are true is dishonest.
You are probably aware that Russell got most of his initial pyramid information through persons he never credited, and made it look like he came up with this himself. He paraphrased and nearly plagiarized parts of Joseph Seiss' book "Miracle in Stone" but never credited Seiss. He did reference Smyth's "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid" and used Smyth's endorsement of what Russell published. Smyth gave it a glowing review and Russell published that letter in Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3.
Not always. He had no other source for his predictions about 1910 and 1911 other than the Pyramid itself. This "enlightenment" he sought did not come from the Bible, but from "divining the entrails" of the Great Pyramid. 
Watchtower Reprints page 5249 : page 167, 1913:
We did in discussing the Great Pyramid—STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES Series—suggest that possibly a certain measurement of the step at the upper end of the Grand Gallery might signify something important by the end of 1910. But we hope that we made it clear that we built nothing on that suggestion—that it was merely a suggestion, a guess only, but a pointer that the year 1911 might be looked to with interest.
 

You should be aware by now that I have only one account and I am not at all worried about your multiple accounts. Pointing out just a few of your active ones can merely help others here understand you a bit better. 
In the meantime, I will repeat that you have always been anxious to focus on distractions. You have had so many chances to provide even one bit of evidence, but you have never come through. You have always ignored and deflected or blustered or merely resorted to anger and ad hominem responses whenever any evidence is provided to you. You are making it pretty obvious that the only reason for your decade of failure to respond to evidence is because you don't have any evidence for a response. And the obfuscations you choose instead are an indication that you are are fully aware of this and that you think it's important to hide this truth from others.
As I've said already:
Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

Here are some of the excerpts I found most interesting:
Page 119 endnotes [Rutherford is quoted extensively by this author] 
13. A small adjustment to this date was proposed by Bro. Adam Rutherford, whose devoted labors in this field are familiar to many brethren. He believed there should be a two-year shift in all the dates of the Neo-Babylonian empire, so that the fall of Babylon occurred in 537 bc. By this means he was able to mark the beginning of Babylon’s 70 years at 607 bc, and thus end the Gentile Times at 1914, without disputing the historical testimony about the span of years between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. (For his interesting and thorough discussion see Rutherford, 25-67 .) However, these points should be noted regarding his presentation. (1) The observation that “no astronomical fixing has as yet been possible from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus inclusive” (526) is controverted by VAT 4956 which astronomically dates the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 bc . (2) His suggestion of a two-year stagger between Cyrus and his son Cambyses (535) is disputed by the 18-year eclipse cycle tablets which span the period from Nabopolassar through Artaxerxes, and the evidence of over 1400 commercial tablets published in list form in the late 1980s which cover the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses . The latter was published after Rutherford’s death, and he may have been unaware of the former. 
...
He remarks on the Adda-Guppi Stele to support a two-year stagger in linking Assyrian history with Babylonian (540-544) . This tablet recites the long life of Adda-Guppi, who was the mother of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon . It says she was born in the 20th year of Ashurbanipal (Assyrian king), and lived through his 42nd year, then 3 years of the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani (Assyrian king), 21 years of Nabopolassar (Babylonian king), 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonian king), 2 years of Amel-Marduk (Babylonian king), 4 years of Neriglissar (Babylonian king), and to the ascension of her son Nabonidus to the throne of Babylon . The age given her in the tablet at that time is 95 years . Indeed, 22 + 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95 years . Yet conventional history assigns to this span 93 years . The answer? Evidently Adda-Guppi moved from the jurisdiction of the Assyrian kings to the jurisdiction of the Babylonian kings when she was 25 years old, during the 3rd year of the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani . This neither requires that he died in his third year (in fact there is a tablet from his fourth year, see Jonsson 210, note 63), nor that she moved in the accession year of Nabopolassar (conventional history implies she made the move in his second year) . 
Page 122 has another of several examples where Adam Rutherford's scholarship sometimes contains dubious assumptions:
Rutherford also holds that the Egyptian sojourn was precisely four hundred years, but his arguments involve two other conclusions: (1) Jacob took three years to journey from Padan-Aram to Canaan, (2) ten years after crossing Jordan Joshua divided the land in a fuller way than Joshua 10:14 refers to. The first is required for his argument, the second is supplementary, but both points are dubious . (Rutherford, 139-150)
Page 135, another example:
Rutherford also reckons Tishri years for Judah, and he also does not assign Jehoiakim an accession year, which he surmises may have been because Jehoiakim came to the throne so close to (even though after) the start of Tishri (Rutherford, 29) . His chart seems to obscure the 12th year problem, which nevertheless exists (Rutherford, 321) . Further, he concludes that Daniel 1:1 also uses the  non-accession year system for Jehoiakim, and therefore adopts the unique but untenable position that the first conquest of Jerusalem preceded the battle of Carchemish . That three such thoughtful reviewers differed slightly on such details hints at the complexity of harmonizing all the data . If the Babylonian Chronicles for the year Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem from Zedekiah were extant, giving the Babylonian month and year for that event, these technicalities would be resolved immediately . But there is a resolution which brings harmony to all the details: (1) all writers used Tishri years for Judah, (2) Kings and Chronicles allow an accession year for Jehoiakim, and so correctly assign him 11 years, (3) Jeremiah uses the non-accession year system for both Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, but never stipulates the length of Jehoiakim’s reign, which would have been 12 
I have not read Jonsson's (COJ's) Supplement to GTR, but note that the author treats it as a carefully documented work of scholarship that can even be used to correct the scholarship of other resources:
117. Listed in Johnson, Supplement, 56 . He cites Ben Zion Wacholder, “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Eary Rabbinic Period,” Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XLIV, ed . Sheldon H . Blank (1973), page 184 . Evidently this article is also published in “Essays on Jewish Chronology and Chronography,” KTAV Publishing House, New York, 1976 . I have not read Wacholder’s article, but my preliminary investigation is consistent with his sabbatical list . Rutherford also gives dates, but they are one year earlier: 164 bc, 38 bc, 68 ad (Rutherford, 36-37) 
I get the impression that Jonsson (COJ) may have been well aware of Adam Rutherford's writings.

You say you brought up Adam Rutherford to expose falsehoods that I and COJ persistently propagate regarding the Babylonian Chronicles. This makes no sense to me, because I am in perfect agreement with what Adam Rutherford says about these Chronicles. I think COJ would also be in agreement. His understanding of the Chronicles appears just fine, and it adds nothing new to what other specialists have said about them. It's not the Chronicles, but his need to ignore the completely separate astronomy data that I have a problem with. To match his interpretation of the 70 years and his special interpretation regarding "sabbaths" etc., he finds a need to work around and even dismiss the astronomy data so that he can use dates that are two years different from all the astronomy evidence. 
I don't know in what other context I'm supposed to read it. I found another work that heavily references both Adam Rutherford's book on Bible Chronology and also compares the points it makes with other scholarly resources. Turns out that this author comprehended it exactly as I had, and he highlights the exact differences I made note of. I had not seen this work until AFTER I had looked through most of Adam Rutherford's Pyramidology, Volume III, when you introduced it here. I have not yet found anyone who has explained Adam Rutherford's work any differently from the way I comprehend it -- and so far that includes you, too. You have also not shown any specific places or ways where I should comprehend it differently. 
The other work discussing Adam Rutherford's theories is 140 pages (pdf) and it's found here:
https://2043ad.com/timeandprophecy.pdf
It has an extensive bibliography which includes several names you are obviously familiar with. I have skipped most of them, but these were the most recognizable and often mentined on this forum:
Barbour-Russell, The Three Worlds, Harvest Gleanings I, 1877, Chic . Bible Stud . Bk . Repub . Com ., ca . 1980 BSM = Bible Study Monthly, “Darius the Mede,” September/October 1980 Edgar, John and Morton, Great Pyramid Passages, Volume 2, Glasgow, 1913 Encyclopedia Judaica, McMillan & Co ., New York, 1971 Froom, Leroy Edwin, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, Four Volumes, Review and Herald, 1948 edition Grayson, A . K ., Texts from Cuneiform Sources, Volume V, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles,  J . J . Augustin Publisher, 1975 Jewish Encyclopedia, New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1901 Jonsson, Carl Olof, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Commentary Press Atlanta, 1986 Jonsson, Carl Olof, Supplement (to above), Odeon Books (PO Box 2071, Danville, CA 94526), 1989 Josephus, Flavius (trans . William Whiston), Josephus Complete Works, Kregel Publications, 1978 Keil, C . F . & Delitzsch, F ., Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 Volumes, William B . Eerdmans, reprinted 1985 McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1871, Baker 1969 McFall, Leslie, “Did Thiele Overlook Hezekiah’s Coregency?,” Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December 1989,  393-404 Miller, William, Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About the Year 1843, published by Joshua Himes, 1842 . Republished 1979, Leaves-of-Autumn Books, Box 440, Payson, AZ 85541 Newton, Robert R ., The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1977 Parker, R . A . and Dubberstein, W . H ., Babylonian Chronology 626 bc - 75 ad, Brown University Press, 1956 Parker, R . A ., “The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II,” JNES 16, 39-43, 1957 Pritchard, James B ., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edition, Princeton, 1969 Ptolemy, Almagest, Britannica Great Books, Volume 16, 1952 Rogers, Robert William, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, 2nd edition, The Abingdon Press, 1926 Russell, Charles Taze B = The Time is at Hand, 1889 C = Thy Kingdom Come, 1890 R = Zion’s Watch Tower, 1879-1916, Reprinted Rutherford, Adam, Bible Chronology, London, 1957  Sachs, A . J . and Hunger, H ., Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Volume 1,  Diaries from 652 bc to 262 bc (Vienna, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988) Thiele, Edwin R ., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Eerdmans Publishing, revised edition, 1965 Wiseman, Donald J ., Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626 - 556 bc) in the British Museum, published by  The Trustees of the British Museum, London, 1961

Alright, I worked my way back to Monday 6/17, and references you made to COJ and Adam Rutherford. 
When you made two clearly false statements about COJ, I did not understand why. You explained that one part of your false statement was because you had used a period instead of a comma. But even that correction didn't change the major false statement. When I asked you about it, you acted like my understanding of your clear statement was somehow a childish game and display of arrogance and a comment on your grammar. It wasn't. Your grammar was perfect. 
At any rate, you couldn't explain away the second claim but it doesn't matter. I think you merely meant something different from what you said. No big deal. 
 

Strange counter-argument to my argument that we should ALWAYS be prepared. But at least we are in agreement with the idea that we should always be prepared, and should always value our Christian life.
I won't bother yet with our ways of supporting Matthew 24 and Mark 13. I can leave that for another time. But I would point out that your own quotation includes Jesus' words that "the end" (synteleia) is not dependent on the events like a war, or wars.  These types of events are the easiest ones to be deceived by, because they are going to continue to happen, and naturally cause concern.  But Jesus pointed out that the disciples should not be looking at them as the sign of his presence. His presence would come without that type of warning sign. 

On 6/18 you made the above statements, as if my claims lacked historical support and factual evidence. But you make an odd comparison to "proving the occurrence of an event in 587 BC" and "relying on the unreliable VAT 4956." As I'm sure you should already know, VAT 4956 is much more reliable than the tablet the WTS relies on for the 7th year of Cambyses in order to prove 539. But ultimately NEITHER or open to multiple interpretations. But neither one matters. Even without either of them, you still have 50 more DIRECT astronomical evidences that the entire period from Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses is completely and reliably and consistently attested to. You could throw out VAT 4956 which opposers of the evidence seem to obsess over because they believe it is somehow "critical" to the astronomical evidence. It wouldn't make a bit of difference. There is still too much completely consistent factual evidence to overcome.

You are right that BC dates are not given to us in the Bible, and that goes for 607 BCE and 539 BCE and 537 BCE, too. But I was focusing on the idea that "the exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later." According to the Bible, it was 1 year later. The Watchtower ignores the Bible's account that it was one year later. It added the idea of two years later so that 1914 would still work. 
Of course, the Isaiah's Prophecy book (quoted above) says that the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination ran from 609 to 539, referencing Jeremiah 25 -- and this follows 2 Chronicles, too.
(2 Chronicles 36:20-22) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign,  to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom, . . .
So there is really nothing in the Bible about having to wait until the Jews got back to their homeland anyway. Russell had this right. The Jews got back to their homeland one year later, but the 70 years had already ended when the kingdom of Persia began to reign. That would be Cyrus' accession year (about October 539 per astronomy evidence). 538 at the latest.

Yes. It sounds simple. But it's even simpler to show how this is just an example of circular reasoning.
1. The bible is absolute truth. Yes. And ultimately it is the Bible's truth that can easily show us that 1914 is a false and contradictory way to look at what the Bible says about the last days, the last generation, the presence/parousia, the kingdom, the sign, the synteleia/conclusion, etc.
2. Pivotal date for fall of Babylon is 539 BCE. Yes. But the only way we can know that it was 539 is through astronomy. And the astronomy data comes to us as a set of data reaching from well before Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, and reaching to well after Cyrus and Cambyses. Through that period there are at least 50 good astronomical readings, without which we would not know any dates like 587, 607, 539, 537. Archaeology gives us dated inscriptions, and near-contemporary lists of kings with their order of succession and their lengths of reign. There are contemporary dated histories, dated business records, temple records, etc. But none of those dates are tied to our BCE or CE era. The only way that can be done is through astronomy and the supporting historical evidence through archaeology.
Even the Watchtower publications admit that they cannot date the year 539 without astronomy. When Nabonidus fell to Cyrus in 539 you'd think the WTS would use astronomy records for Nabonidus or Cyrus, but they don't. They use a damaged and partially unreliable COPY of an older inscription that gives an astronomy observation for the 7th year of Cambyses. Then they make use of a more recent King List like the one(s) Ptolemy used to see how Cambyses is related to Cyrus on the timeline. They look at the contract tablets also to see how many years that Cambyses and Cyrus ruled and to double-check that there were no other rulers or co-rulers in the meantime. 
Why just focus on the one partly unreliable INDIRECT inscription when there are at least 50 reliable DIRECT inscriptions for the entire period? That's easy. Because the entire set of reliable DIRECT inscriptions shows us that you cannot accept 539 BCE as the fall of Babylon unless you also accept that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587. NOT 607 BCE. So it's really only through dishonest presentation of the data that one could claim we KNOW about 539 without admitting that the only way we KNOW 539 is because we also KNOW that 607 is the WRONG date for the fall of Jerusalem in the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
So IF you are saying that 539 is pivotal, it's the same as saying that the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar is at least 10 times MORE PIVOTAL. That's because there are about a DOZEN observations/records of astronomical events that DIRECTLY give us the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 
If you believe 539 is correct, it's the same as saying that 607 is incorrect for ANY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. That's because Nebuchadnezzar didn't even become a king until well AFTER 607.
The exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later, 537 BCE. That's not in the Bible. It's an adjustment the Watchtower had to make in order for 1914 to still work, related to fixing the old mistake claiming it was 606 to 536 BCE.
The Bible says it was one year later, not two. Cyrus captured Babylon in October, about the 7th month of the Jewish and Babylonian year. Sometimes the Bible calls the first year of a king from that very point in his accession year, but since the Jews didn't arrive until the 7th month of the first year, this must be counting Cyrus' first year from Nisan (March/April). So it's the 7th month of 538 if you accept 539 as pivotal.
(Ezra 1:1) . . .In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom. . .(3:1) When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities, they gathered together with one accord in Jerusalem. (3:8) In the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Ze·rubʹba·bel the son of She·alʹti·el, Jeshʹu·a the son of Je·hozʹa·dak and the rest of their brothers, the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come to Jerusalem out of the captivity started the work; they appointed the Levites from 20 years old and up to serve as supervisors over the work of the house of Jehovah.
Counting back 70 years for Judah's desolation brings us to 607 BCE. Now, this is the bone of contention, unless we accept point #1 above.  This is no bone of contention for me. I believe that Judah's desolation began within a year or two of 607 BCE. Just like Adam Rutherford, and just like the Watchtower publication, Isaiah's Prophecy, I believe the 70 years were counted from the very time that Babylon became the fear-inspiring new threat and began desolating and desecrating Judea. As BTK has indicated, the effect would be on all of Judea from the moment that the new fear inspiring Empire began attacking any of the nations around it. And it did this for a 70 year period. 
----jw.org----
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, 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.
 

What if Satan knew that Jesus said that no one would knows the day and hour of his return, that it would be at a time we would not think to be it, and that the times and seasons are in Jehovah's jurisdiction, not for us to know. And what if he knew that Paul had said "As for the times and seasons, you need nothing to be written to you -- because you very well know that the day will come as a thief."
So Satan is seeking to devour people who are otherwise determined to be Jehovah's named people, but he would love to see them become disobedient to the spirit of Jesus's words and show the kind of hubris and pride that would make them think that what Jesus said doesn't really matter: that we want to claim that we can know the times and seasons anyway. 
So Satan finds a group of honest-hearted people looking for truth, but he needs them to have at least one major stumbling block -- disobedience to Jesus' words about realizing that the end comes as a complete surprise, just the way that Sodom was destroyed without warning. This way it's also possible to get people serving for a date, or not completely whole-souled because they think that they will be able to wait until the signs get even more specific [like a "cry" of peace and security] before they completely clear their conscience of all the things that could weigh them down in this system. They will be looking for signs, but won't be focused on what sort of persons they ought to be - and to be ready for that revelation/manifestation/parousia at any time, including 5 minutes from now. 
So making persons get absorbed in date-setting not only produces a lack of readiness, it always produces one more thing that most people don't realize. Everyone who sets certain expectation for certain dates is displaying presumptuousness and pride. They will also invariably fail, just as Russell failed with every single prediction and expectation for 1914, and 1915, and 1878, and 1881, and just as Rutherford failed in his published predictions for 1918 and 1925. The pride angle is obvious, because a leader like Russell or Rutherford (or Ellen G White, or Nelson Barbour, or William Miller, or Garner Ted Armstrong, or Frederick Franz, or Harold Camping, etc.) is saying in effect, "I know Jesus said that no one would know, but he is making an exception for me, and therefore for the group that listens to what I am saying. We are so special!"
But that type of pride has a secondary effect when the dates fail -- and they invariably do fail. To save face, every single person who has predicted something must backtrack (with few exceptions) and try to make it look like it wasn't really a failure. Instead of admitting failure, it becomes "Well it wasn't us, it was people listening to us but getting too carried away." Or, "We were expecting the right thing, just at the wrong time - a little to early." Or, "We had the time right, we were just expecting the wrong thing." And then there is the whitewashing of history, as when the Watchtower began "bragging" about how only Jehovah's Witnesses (called Bible Students at the time) were preaching for decades in advance that Jesus' invisible presence would begin and Christ's kingdom would be born in 1914." Of course, that's a dishonest statement, yet we have heard versions of it so many times that some of us believe it's true. No one ever preached in advance that Christ's kingdom would begin in 1914. No one ever preached in advance that Jesus invisible presence would begin in 1914.
There is nearly always an element of dishonesty that goes with every religion that has ever tried to set dates related to end time events. So if Satan could find a way to feed into that idea of date-setting either through a typo or through manipulation of world leaders to fool Russell into thinking one of his dates was right all along, I wouldn't doubt that Satan would try.

What if Satan knew that Jesus said that no one would knows the day and hour of his return, that it would be at a time we would not think to be it, and that the times and seasons are in Jehovah's jurisdiction, not for us to know. And what if he knew that Paul had said "As for the times and seasons, you need nothing to be written to you -- because you very well know that the day will come as a thief."
So Satan is seeking to devour people who are otherwise determined to be Jehovah's named people, but he would love to see them become disobedient to the spirit of Jesus's words and show the kind of hubris and pride that would make them think that what Jesus said doesn't really matter: that we want to claim that we can know the times and seasons anyway. 
So Satan finds a group of honest-hearted people looking for truth, but he needs them to have at least one major stumbling block -- disobedience to Jesus' words about realizing that the end comes as a complete surprise, just the way that Sodom was destroyed without warning. This way it's also possible to get people serving for a date, or not completely whole-souled because they think that they will be able to wait until the signs get even more specific [like a "cry" of peace and security] before they completely clear their conscience of all the things that could weigh them down in this system. They will be looking for signs, but won't be focused on what sort of persons they ought to be - and to be ready for that revelation/manifestation/parousia at any time, including 5 minutes from now. 
So making persons get absorbed in date-setting not only produces a lack of readiness, it always produces one more thing that most people don't realize. Everyone who sets certain expectation for certain dates is displaying presumptuousness and pride. They will also invariably fail, just as Russell failed with every single prediction and expectation for 1914, and 1915, and 1878, and 1881, and just as Rutherford failed in his published predictions for 1918 and 1925. The pride angle is obvious, because a leader like Russell or Rutherford (or Ellen G White, or Nelson Barbour, or William Miller, or Garner Ted Armstrong, or Frederick Franz, or Harold Camping, etc.) is saying in effect, "I know Jesus said that no one would know, but he is making an exception for me, and therefore for the group that listens to what I am saying. We are so special!"
But that type of pride has a secondary effect when the dates fail -- and they invariably do fail. To save face, every single person who has predicted something must backtrack (with few exceptions) and try to make it look like it wasn't really a failure. Instead of admitting failure, it becomes "Well it wasn't us, it was people listening to us but getting too carried away." Or, "We were expecting the right thing, just at the wrong time - a little to early." Or, "We had the time right, we were just expecting the wrong thing." And then there is the whitewashing of history, as when the Watchtower began "bragging" about how only Jehovah's Witnesses (called Bible Students at the time) were preaching for decades in advance that Jesus' invisible presence would begin and Christ's kingdom would be born in 1914." Of course, that's a dishonest statement, yet we have heard versions of it so many times that some of us believe it's true. No one ever preached in advance that Christ's kingdom would begin in 1914. No one ever preached in advance that Jesus invisible presence would begin in 1914.
There is nearly always an element of dishonesty that goes with every religion that has ever tried to set dates related to end time events. So if Satan could find a way to feed into that idea of date-setting either through a typo or through manipulation of world leaders to fool Russell into thinking one of his dates was right all along, I wouldn't doubt that Satan would try.

That sounds like some very dishonest and manipulative wordplay. Rutherford does not support "the belief" in 607 BC. He believed that the Watchtower (and Russell) was WRONG to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 (606) BC. Rutherford believed it was 585 and that Russell was WRONG by 21 years. Rutherford believed that the current Watchtower was WRONG by 22 years. He would believe I was wrong to use the astronomy data, because he likes 537 for the year Cyrus captured Babylon. I agree with the current Watchtower that it was 539 BC. He would believe I was WRONG by 2 years.
 But this doesn't mean I believe the Watchtower's 539 over his fixation on 537 as if my entire existence depended on it. It's just something I believe because that's what the evidence says. The astronomy evidence says the Watchtower is right about 539 and Rutherford supports a different date. So what? Same with 587 BCE. So what?
I only claim that Russell claimed that the end of the world meant the end of the "system of things." (The world: the ecclesiastical heavens and and the social earth.) The end of this world means there will be a new world, because the old heavens and the old earth will have passed away. As Russell claimed in May 1914, when his waning faith in that year was revived:
There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this Gospel age is now even at the door, and that it will end as the Scriptures foretell in a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. We see the participants in this great crisis banding themselves together [...] The great crisis, the great clash [...] that will consume the ecclesiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near.
As he said for decades prior to 1914:
We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble.

OK. You've explained a bit more. You clearly said that COJ was an ex-Bethelite and that he claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and relate this to 1914.
So it's clear that's exactly what you said, but now you say I was manipulating your words and that you were referring to me as the ex-Bethelite. Just to be clear then, it's YOU manipulating your words to say they mean something else now. Fine. But you are still saying that he, COJ I assume, claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BC and relate this to 1914. 
I don't see how you can manipulate your words about COJ claiming to align these chronicles with 607, much less 1914. He wrote his entire book to show the exact opposite. He shows how the Babylonian Chronicles do NOT align with 607 and how they therefore could never align with 1914. But you knew that, because you even quoted proof from his book. 
There's nothing to argue here. But when you manipulate your own words, to avoid admitting a simple mistake, I assume, don't accuse me of manipulating them. That's dishonest.  
Again, always with the projection. You presented COJ's own words as if they supported what you said, when they said the opposite. As if you had chosen to be blind to what they were saying. And then you accuse me of turning a blind eye.
The entire point wasn't even necessary to defend. I don't care what COJ thinks, just like I don't care what Adam Rutherford thinks. They both write from a perspective that has an agenda. COJ had an agenda to prove that the evidence the WTS uses, doesn't align with 607 or 1914. Adam Rutherford had an agenda to prove that the Great Pyramid was the "Bible in Stone" and "God's Witness" that prophesied about these last days, exactly what Russell had said. Both COJ and Adam Rutherford agree on the relative chronology of the period, but so what? I look to see if I can learn something in comparison to other resources, but then I can move on. Rutherford avoids astronomy evidence and COJ uses it. We can compare their results to those who don't have a pro-Russell-styled agenda or an anti-WTS-styled agenda, but don't simply rely on people who write with an agenda. 
What does it matter if "even Rutherford" placed it in 585 BC? He ignored the astronomical evidence. Otherwise he is stuck with 539 as the year Cyrus ended the 70 years of Babylonian domination. He needs 537 to get 607 and from there to get 1914.
100% of the current researchers, historians, archaeologists, and astronomers who have looked at the Neo-Babylonian astronomy evidence place Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587 BC. I agree with all the authorities on that subject quoted in the Watchtower publications. You disagree with all those authorities quoted in the Watchtower publications. The difference here is that I have told you why I agree but you can't tell me why you are an opposer of all those authorities the Watchtower depends upon for quotations about the period.   

I have no reason to defend him. I just wanted to know where you got the information that he was a Bethelite and why you were claiming that he aligned the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. You said:
I think it's now clear from what you just admitted in your strange deflection that you know you were wrong. What you quoted next proves it. 
Exactly. So he does NOT align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. Yes, he discredits the Watchtower chronology. Wasn't that the whole point of his book? It turns out that EVERY SINGLE authority on the Babylonian Chronicles discredits the Watchtower chronology. So what else is new? Every single authority that the Watchtower publications make use of when they want to make a point about the Babylonian Chronicles also discredits the Watchtower chronology. That's why the Insight book and Aid book for example quote these authorities, but then add their own Watchtower chronology next to the quote (and sometimes INSIDE the quote) to make it look like the authorities they reference support the Watchtower chronology. I showed half a dozen cases of this in another thread. It's called academic dishonesty in an academic setting.
It's deceptive. By pointing it out, I'm hoping this will stop happening in our publications.
There. You even highlighted the portion that proves he did NOT align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BCE. Thank you.
There. You found another place where COJ shows that he does not align them with 607 and 1914 as you claimed. 
It just occurred to me that you might not have known the definition of the word "align." That could be the only justification I can think of for persisting in your false claim. At least that isn't deceitful. 

Could be. But it doesn't seem to matter much who else was into pyramidology. If what the Christian Scientists are claiming now is wrong, so be it. 
I didn't bring up Adam Rutherford and "Pyramidology." You did. I never claimed that all Bible Student associations were the same. I never suspected he had to have been an associate during Russell's time as a Bible Student anyway. Turned out that he might have been. I saw the volume he published as late as 1974 and noted that he was born in 1894 and died at around age 80 and he was therefore only 22 when Russell died. I made no connection to Watchtower Bible Students or Russellite Bible Students. That was you thinking I did. (Or maybe hoping that I did?) When you introduced Adam Rutherford you made no connection at all to Russellite or non-Russellite Bible Students, and yet now you claim you knew his history for 40 years. If you didn't think it mattered then, why do you think it matters now? I only spoke of how his statements aligned with Russell's and other Bible Students concerning how he fully defended the same view of the Great Pyramid as Russell, and how he quoted phrases and even entire pages from Russell's Watch Tower publications. And how a current (well-known) Bible Student site claims he had been a Bible Student. All Bible Student groups were or are distinct in some small ways, but all appear to stick fairly close and loyal to Russell's Watch Tower publications from 1879 to 1916

Hardly. I only researched what I was assigned to research. The most leeway I was given was when I had to look up and review what had been said previously about certain specific doctrines. We didn't have electronic searching of anything, or the Internet. So if Brother BS, or RL, or JN asked me to look into what we once said about house-to-house, or the literal vs the figurative heart, or a partial 70 CE fulfillment of Matthew 24, or certain medical advice, or Abaddon, or Evolution, or the Creative Days, or the Prodigal Son, then I might get a chance to read dozens of articles going all the way back through the 1930's. We would find a lot of places where the WT Publications Index needed updating, too. We didn't actually care about going back to Russell. Mostly, the brothers only cared about references going back to 1935, sometimes 1931. Then we might see if our commentary referencing Bible dictionaries and lexicons still held up with the latest versions of those references. And the Aid Book was still producing new questions to look up and double-check for accuracy. 
I was never assigned a research project about chronology, or parousia, or the generation, or Gentile Times, or the 70 years, or Babylonian kings. The closest to that was a double-check of how often anyone had written about a partial or minor fulfillment of Matthew 24 in the first century. And one time I had to look up if we had been consistent about saying that the "Lord's Day" of Revelation 1:10 had been the start of 1914. But obviously it was never a matter of questioning 1914. When COJ's manuscript came up, it was a total surprise to me that anyone would question 1914, although I soon learned that Sydlik, Schroeder, Chitty and Swingle were questioning certain aspects of it. And I soon learned COJ's name from Rusk and Schroeder, but I thought they were going to find someone to respond to the document.
You seem to have not understood much of what Adam Rutherford was saying, then. Adam Rutherford's information is basically a confirmation of the ideas of COJ and every authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Being only two years off from the astronomically evidenced numbers is hardly a problem unless you also want to incorporate the dozens of astronomical readings. But Adam Rutherford stuck with the relative chronology but mostly ignored the "absolute" chronology that the astronomy readings would have given.
With respect to the relative chronology, Adam Rutherford, confirms COJ's understanding and that of every person currently considered an authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Adam Rutherford agrees completely with me, too, on the relative chronology. If he was using the Babylonian Chronicles correctly then he is saying that COJ is right, and the Watchtower is wrong. His information would mostly just confirm COJ, not challenge him. COJ goes further and takes into consideration the rest of the astronomical evidence which Rutherford also nearly had right -- only two years off. Rutherford indicates that the current Watchtower is 22 years off in the absolute, and 20 years off in the relative. 
His information could only have been use to challenge and refute the Watchtower.

Go back and read everything I said about him and you will see that what I said was perfectly accurate. There is no false narrative here about him being a Bible Student. So it still looks like you tend to make up deceptions out of thin air. 
Everything I said about him was and is still true. So it still looks like you tend to make up deceptions out of thin air. 
Don't make up things you wish someone had said, just so you can claim they got caught in a lie. That's dishonest. Think about Proverbs 6:16-18: 
There are six things that Jehovah hates; Yes, seven things that he detests: 17  Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18  A heart plotting wicked schemes, and feet that run quickly to evil, 19  A false witness who lies with every breath, And anyone sowing contentions among brothers.
Read more carefully and you probably won't be as confused.
I had never heard of him while I was at Bethel. All I heard about COJ at Bethel was that he had typed a manuscript that questioned our chronology about the Gentile Times. I first heard about it when speaking with someone in Writing who said that it is just sitting on the shelf over there because no one wants to touch it. It's a "hot potato."

Officially, I think Christian Scientists were not into pyramidology. 
 https://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/research/was-there-ever-a-pyramid-at-mary-baker-eddys-birthplace/
Some independent Christian Scientists evidently supported it, but the "mother church" did not. The only known references to Mary Baker Eddy mentioning "pyramidology" is a reference to "The Great Pyramid" and how it had been called "a miracle in stone." Eddy herself seemed like it was only good for a comparison and she said nothing much about the Great Pyramid itself outside of that reference to the public's view of it. 
I would compare this to the definite "pyramidology" of Charles Taze Russell, who spoke of that one pyramid, Giza, and only that one as Jehovah's Witness in stone, and as God's Prophet. By divining the entrails of the pyramid, he tried to derive truths about the times and seasons for the last days. He tried to derive truths that supported his pre-conceived beliefs about "Israel's double" and 1874, and 187, and 1881, 1910, 1911, 1914 and 1915. As opposed to just a sentence or two from the leader and primary author of Christian Scientist material, Russell published pages and pages about it. Chapters, sermons and articles. He defended it in all the ways that Seiss did in the book, Miracle in Stone. He published Smyth's endorsement of his main treatise on the pyramid, mentioning that this endorsement was by the person he said knew more about it than any living person on earth. Russell had pictures of the Pyramid and its entrails embossed onto the cover of hundreds of thousands of Studies in the Scriptures. He used pyramid illustrations in his "Chart of the Ages" and in various simpler illustrations to make points about pyramids in general. But mostly it was all about defending the supposed knowledge found in the Great Pyramid of Giza and which was hidden for many ages until it was providentially revealed during the great restoration period he believed he was in. 
Here is one of his pyramid illustrations that has nothing to do with the Great Pyramid of Giza, as found in the first volume, Divine Plan of the Ages:
Our oneness with the Lord Jesus, as members of the Christ, the anointed company, is well illustrated by the figure of the pyramid.

The top-stone is a perfect pyramid of itself. Other stones may be built up under it, and, if in harmony with all the characteristic lines of the top-stone, the whole mass will be a perfect pyramid. How beautifully this illustrates our position as members of "the Seed"—"the Christ." Joined to and perfectly in harmony with our Head, we, as living stones, are perfect; separated from him, we are nothing. [A83]
Jesus, the perfect one, has been highly exalted, and now we present ourselves to him that we may be formed and shaped according to his example, and that we may be built up as a building of God. In an ordinary building there is no chief corner-stone; but in our building there is one chief corner-stone, the "top-stone," as it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious"—"to whom coming as unto a living stone...ye also as lively [living] stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up *sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:4-6) And very soon, we trust, the union between Jesus, the "Head," and "the Church, which is his body," will be complete.
Bible Students who were close to Russell and loyal to Russell defended Russell's beliefs about the Great Pyramid. Russell wasn't a spiritist, or into spiritualism, or anything related to the occult. But he supported pyramidology in exactly the sense of the term that Adam Rutherford used the term when he wrote the series of volumes he called "Pyramidology." 

You appear to be creating deceptions out of thin air. Why? Russell was not a spiritualist. Why act like someone said he was?
I don't think COJ was ever a Bethelite. And he didn't align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. You appear to be creating deceptions out of thin air.
More apparent deceptions. I am merely accepting the astronomical evidence for the BCE years. I should have a right to accept that evidence if I wish. I'm merely doing the same thing as 100% of the authorities that the Insight book quotes from in all their discussions of the astronomical evidence. I am doing the same thing the Watchtower does for for dates after 562 BCE. The difference is that I consistently accept that same evidence for dates prior to 562 BCE, especially where that evidence is at least 10 times better than the particular astronomical evidence the WTS has focused on. But I accept the WTS astronomical evidence, too, in spite of it's problems. 
Do you now have a date for Nebuchadnezzar that is NOT based on astronomical evidence? Or do you have other evidence for any of Nebuchadnezzar's years? You haven't been able to produce any for 10 years. I'll have to repeat again:
Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.