JW Insider

This post follows up on my last post looking more closely at the words in the Proclaimers book, repeated here:
At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. From what I can tell, the basic idea of these periods of time, especially the ones associated with 2,520 years, were about judgments visited upon the nation of Israel/Judah. As Seiss published:
Upon this one feature all prophetic periods‘ are made to depend; “the seven  times” of Moses, the two thousand and three hundred days,” and the other shorter periods of Daniel, all have primary reference to the chastisements visited upon this people and nation. Taking first the "seven times," or the two thousand five hundred and twenty years of dispersion and denationalization, for the disobedience and rebellion of Israel under the Law, as predicted by Moses (Lev. 26:18,21,24,28) and indicative of the entire period of God's displeasure toward them, and accepting the historical dates of God's afflictive dispensations. . . . The point here is that the "seven times" or 2,520 years are not taken from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy in Daniel 4, but are called the "seven times" of Moses. This means, of course, that they come from Leviticus 26:18-28 which says:
(Leviticus 26:18-28) 18 "If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . .  21 But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.. . . 24 then I too will walk in opposition to you, and I myself will strike you seven times for your sins. . . . 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins." The word here is not the word "times" in the sense of "iddan" as in Daniel which can refer especially to time periods, like weeks, months, seasons, years, etc. In Daniel the word is therefore translatable as "seven periods of time" but in Leviticus the term is not really "seven times" literally, but just "seven" as in the meaning of "7 times as much," or 7 instances. The literal word "times" doesn't even appear, and can be understood as a numerical multiple, as in the way "double/twice" or "triple/thrice" or "quadruple" can be used with numbers like 2, 3 and 4.  Something similar (and probably related) happens when Daniel prays about the fact that the 70 years of Jeremiah must be completed, and Daniel is told that it's not just going to be 70 years, but "7 TIMES 70" years before a complete fulfillment is seen. 
But did Russell really ever reject this reasoning?

I don't think he's quite as young as Brother Sanderson was when he was appointed, I think in his early 50's. Probably 53 to 55.

So what did the "Prophetic Times" of December 1870, published by Seiss, actually say?
It mentioned several dates because one of the points was that the 2520 years as a punishment for Israel could be thought of as having many different start dates, due to the fact that there are several important times mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles when Jehovah spoke of a time of special punishment relative to the kings of Israel or Judah. But of all these dates in the 1700's through the 1900's, the others were mentioned only an average of about 1.5 times each. But 1914 is mentioned SIX times in the article. The two columns in the first image represent 606 as the time when Nebuchadnezzar takes Daniel, in approximately his accession year, which was usually considered to be 605, not 606:

Notice that he is generally a year off from the commonly accepted secular dates:

The following are more copy-and-paste excerpts where 1914 was under discussions.


 

The actual date is still not important to me. But treating all facts, evidence and interpretations of evidence with honesty will always be important to me. Even if something is trivial in the long run, we can show our faithfulness in small things which is just as important as showing faithfulness with big things.
(Luke 16:10) 10 The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. As you know, I don't believe any of these secular dates like 539, 607 and 587 are important to any understanding of any prophecy. The Bible record is sufficient and any prophecy that depends on a knowledge of secular chronology or an interpretation of that secular evidence is clearly not in harmony with the scriptures. And you can't know about 539 without an interpretation of secular evidence.
(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (2 Peter 1:20) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. No matter how sure we are about our interpretation of the secular evidence, if we have worked out a prophecy that involves a supposed "pivotal" or "absolute" secular date, like 539 BCE, or 607 BCE, or even 1914 CE, then we know for sure that this isn't the proper way to treat scriptural prophecy. If we don't learn from these hundreds of chronology mistakes in our own doctrinal past, and just continue to prove ourselves unfaithful, and unable to handle the word of God aright, then we have no right to call our doctrines "truth."
Sorry, as I said I'm no longer playing your word-twisting games. If you are hoping to say something or communicate something you will have to actually say what you mean. If you want to be taken for someone who doesn't care to explain or defend his beliefs, or answer questions, that's fine with me too. You should know, however, that you have so often used this technique for the obvious purpose of obfuscation and evasion in the past, that I'm afraid it will continue to look like this is what you are up to again.
Do you really believe the WT might be off by as many as 200 years? To me, all those tablets tell me the opposite, that we have a chronology that is made even more sure. We can't even try to maneuver an extra 20 years into it any more without getting caught as pseudo-historians and pseudo-archaeologists. We end up trivializing the rest of our message by being unfaithful in what is least.
You mean that Jeremiah was wrong, or the Watchtower, or both? As long as you merely state vague generalities without evidence you are merely throwing out twisted words and hoping some of them might stick. Not a good or respectable methodology.
Sounds like more haughty pretentiousness. Vague claims of superior knowledge with no evidence. I'm just guessing, but I suspect it will end the way "scholar JW" was found to be lying when he said that evidence about J.A.Brown would prove COJ had blundered, but wouldn't dare show his evidence. When the evidence showed up it proved that "scholar JW" had been lying. Decades of erred perception, and it took people just a few seconds to figure it out when the evidence was finally presented.
You must not have any idea what you are talking about. These tablets are 100% in agreement with the Bible and the secular timeline that has been known and knowable for longer than the WTS has been around.
This is another meaningless "word salad" with pretentious, but slippery dressing.
You are saying that the WT made a  19-year adjustment in 2011 to remain in sync? But you don't want to spell it out for some reason. I would just call your bluff but, yes, I can already see through the dishonesty. The WT never made a 19-year time adjustment in 2011. The WTS clearly wanted to take some advantage of Furuli's lack of honesty by using hints about his work in the 10/1 and 11/1 Watchtower issues, but the WTS couched most of their words in some careful language showing that they realized they would be thoroughly embarrassed if they named the book and scholar who had sullied himself with such dishonest scholarship. You noticed that these Watchtower issues named the reputable books, but would not dare name the source of the discredited theory.
Furuli would never try to defend his theory in public or try to get such a theory peer-reviewed.

You haven't explained why this 604 date is suddenly so important to you. The point about 604 has been made by secular archaeologists, myself, Ann, COJ, Jeffro and others for years, and suddenly you act like this is something you just found out. Have you not been reading anything written on the topic no matter how many times it was mentioned. Also, you now act like it's so important to count this 604 date (+ or - 1 or 2 yrs.) among the other two dates, which is something that people have been saying for nearly 200 years now. As you say, it shouldn't have surprised you at all.
You are playing that dishonest game again where you make a vague statement that doesn't exactly mean anything in English, so that someone might have to guess what you mean. I'm not playing your word-twisting games any more. You will have to explain what you mean by "the continued assumption," and the two ideologies, for example. Yours? Mine? Which differences in this revised WT chronology? How are these assumptions affecting the date of the final destruction of Jerusalem's wall and temple under Nebuchadnezzar?
Yes. Of course it matters. Why would you even have to ask?
So what is your point? That Nabokalassar in this list reminds you of Nabopallassar? The book you are quoting https://books.google.com/books?id=yJLccBK6cDoC is from 1867 before hardly any of the contemporary dated tablets and artifacts were translated and published. The chronology still seemed fluid to many people when they thought it was only based on Ptolemy. The author of this book, "The Sealed Book of Daniel Opened" didn't like 539 BCE as the end of the reign of Nabonidus (and Belshazzar) because he wished that the 70 weeks of years were easier to manage based on his own Bible interpretation. A common problem. The Watchtower tried to do similar things when the secular chronology got in the way of a private interpretation.
But don't forget that the Watchtower still likes 539 BCE. I like 539 BCE. Arauna and Ann O'maly both like 539. Even scholar_JW and AlanF both agree on 539. This author likes a date closer to 488 to replace 539. It's easy to guess why. Because he wants 69 weeks of years, or 483, years to reach closer to the time from the decree of Cyrus so that it' Cyrus who starts the 69 weeks of years, to reach to the Messiah who was born, he says, in 5 BCE. This has been a favorite project of "crank" Bible interpreters for years. Perhaps the Watchtower will go for it one day because it would also move the parousia from 1914 to about 1997 (+/-) or at least to 1964 depending on whether you need to reach Jesus' death or his birth. That's the kind of generation reset some WTS writers probably would have died for, because they could have avoided the flap over the overlapping generation. 
The author makes a lot of errors we would now consider to be stupid. You probably noticed some of them yourself.

What is the opposite of a scholar?

The N-B secular chronology is probably based on a 30,000 point theory. When I was at the British Museum last year, I asked how many different clay cuneiform documents exist that can help us to reconstruct the Neo-Babylonian period. The number 30,000 came up a couple of times. This is a good portion of the clay documents mentioned here on their site. They claim about 50,000 items in their own Neo-Babylonian collection. Iraq has at least 10,000 more.
Studying cuneiform tablets
The department’s collection of cuneiform tablets is among the most important in the world. It contains approximately 130,000 texts and fragments and is perhaps the largest collection outside of Iraq.
It can be separated into the following main groups (all numbers below are approximate):
Early Dynastic (c.3200–2500 BC) - 500 items from Ur, Fara Old Akkadian (c. 2500–2200 BC) 150 items Ur III (c. 2200–2000 BC) - 30,000 items from Lagash, Umma, Ur, Drehem Old Assyrian (c. nineteenth–eighteenth centuries BC) - 700 items from Anatolia Old Babylonian (c. 1900–1650 BC) - 20,000 items from Sippar, Ur, Larsa, Uruk, Kutalla, Kisurra non-Mesopotamian - 400 items including Alalakh in Syria, Amarna in Egypt, Elamite texts from Iran and Hittite texts from Anatolia Neo-Assyrian (first millennium BC) - 25,000 items from Kuyunjik, Nimrud Neo-Babylonian (first millennium BC) - 50,000 items from Sippar, Babylon, Borsippa, Uruk, Larsa, Ur, Kutalla.  

No one ever gave evidence against 538 or 605. They are both good dates to put forward for the events that should be associated with them, plus or minus a year or two, in my opinion.
You provide mixed up facts for me to choke on? LOL. 
Then why has most of WT Chronology already been dropped? About 15 of the original "non-erasable" prophetic dates that had included 1914 have already been erased from WT chronology. All that is left is a simple claim that, even though all the predictions for 1914 failed, we are going to keep it anyway because, if we merely change the meaning of "Gentile Times" we can at least say we got that part right. Of course, even this is a huge failure, because our current definition is not based on scripture.
WT chronology was intended to circumvent the words of Jesus about how the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and how no one would know the time of the parousia. It had become analogous to the way in which early Christians were using genealogies:
(1 Timothy 1:3-7) . . .to command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on . . .  

No one ever gave evidence against 538 or 605. They are both good dates to put forward for the events that should be associated with them, plus or minus a year or two, in my opinion.
You provide mixed up facts for me to choke on? LOL. 
Then why has most of WT Chronology already been dropped? About 15 of the original "non-erasable" prophetic dates that had included 1914 have already been erased from WT chronology. All that is left is a simple claim that, even though all the predictions for 1914 failed, we are going to keep it anyway because, if we merely change the meaning of "Gentile Times" we can at least say we got that part right. Of course, even this is a huge failure, because our current definition is not based on scripture.
WT chronology was intended to circumvent the words of Jesus about how the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and how no one would know the time of the parousia. It had become analogous to the way in which early Christians were using genealogies:
(1 Timothy 1:3-7) . . .to command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on . . .  

The actual date is still not important to me. But treating all facts, evidence and interpretations of evidence with honesty will always be important to me. Even if something is trivial in the long run, we can show our faithfulness in small things which is just as important as showing faithfulness with big things.
(Luke 16:10) 10 The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. As you know, I don't believe any of these secular dates like 539, 607 and 587 are important to any understanding of any prophecy. The Bible record is sufficient and any prophecy that depends on a knowledge of secular chronology or an interpretation of that secular evidence is clearly not in harmony with the scriptures. And you can't know about 539 without an interpretation of secular evidence.
(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (2 Peter 1:20) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. No matter how sure we are about our interpretation of the secular evidence, if we have worked out a prophecy that involves a supposed "pivotal" or "absolute" secular date, like 539 BCE, or 607 BCE, or even 1914 CE, then we know for sure that this isn't the proper way to treat scriptural prophecy. If we don't learn from these hundreds of chronology mistakes in our own doctrinal past, and just continue to prove ourselves unfaithful, and unable to handle the word of God aright, then we have no right to call our doctrines "truth."
Sorry, as I said I'm no longer playing your word-twisting games. If you are hoping to say something or communicate something you will have to actually say what you mean. If you want to be taken for someone who doesn't care to explain or defend his beliefs, or answer questions, that's fine with me too. You should know, however, that you have so often used this technique for the obvious purpose of obfuscation and evasion in the past, that I'm afraid it will continue to look like this is what you are up to again.
Do you really believe the WT might be off by as many as 200 years? To me, all those tablets tell me the opposite, that we have a chronology that is made even more sure. We can't even try to maneuver an extra 20 years into it any more without getting caught as pseudo-historians and pseudo-archaeologists. We end up trivializing the rest of our message by being unfaithful in what is least.
You mean that Jeremiah was wrong, or the Watchtower, or both? As long as you merely state vague generalities without evidence you are merely throwing out twisted words and hoping some of them might stick. Not a good or respectable methodology.
Sounds like more haughty pretentiousness. Vague claims of superior knowledge with no evidence. I'm just guessing, but I suspect it will end the way "scholar JW" was found to be lying when he said that evidence about J.A.Brown would prove COJ had blundered, but wouldn't dare show his evidence. When the evidence showed up it proved that "scholar JW" had been lying. Decades of erred perception, and it took people just a few seconds to figure it out when the evidence was finally presented.
You must not have any idea what you are talking about. These tablets are 100% in agreement with the Bible and the secular timeline that has been known and knowable for longer than the WTS has been around.
This is another meaningless "word salad" with pretentious, but slippery dressing.
You are saying that the WT made a  19-year adjustment in 2011 to remain in sync? But you don't want to spell it out for some reason. I would just call your bluff but, yes, I can already see through the dishonesty. The WT never made a 19-year time adjustment in 2011. The WTS clearly wanted to take some advantage of Furuli's lack of honesty by using hints about his work in the 10/1 and 11/1 Watchtower issues, but the WTS couched most of their words in some careful language showing that they realized they would be thoroughly embarrassed if they named the book and scholar who had sullied himself with such dishonest scholarship. You noticed that these Watchtower issues named the reputable books, but would not dare name the source of the discredited theory.
Furuli would never try to defend his theory in public or try to get such a theory peer-reviewed.

The actual date is still not important to me. But treating all facts, evidence and interpretations of evidence with honesty will always be important to me. Even if something is trivial in the long run, we can show our faithfulness in small things which is just as important as showing faithfulness with big things.
(Luke 16:10) 10 The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. As you know, I don't believe any of these secular dates like 539, 607 and 587 are important to any understanding of any prophecy. The Bible record is sufficient and any prophecy that depends on a knowledge of secular chronology or an interpretation of that secular evidence is clearly not in harmony with the scriptures. And you can't know about 539 without an interpretation of secular evidence.
(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (2 Peter 1:20) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. No matter how sure we are about our interpretation of the secular evidence, if we have worked out a prophecy that involves a supposed "pivotal" or "absolute" secular date, like 539 BCE, or 607 BCE, or even 1914 CE, then we know for sure that this isn't the proper way to treat scriptural prophecy. If we don't learn from these hundreds of chronology mistakes in our own doctrinal past, and just continue to prove ourselves unfaithful, and unable to handle the word of God aright, then we have no right to call our doctrines "truth."
Sorry, as I said I'm no longer playing your word-twisting games. If you are hoping to say something or communicate something you will have to actually say what you mean. If you want to be taken for someone who doesn't care to explain or defend his beliefs, or answer questions, that's fine with me too. You should know, however, that you have so often used this technique for the obvious purpose of obfuscation and evasion in the past, that I'm afraid it will continue to look like this is what you are up to again.
Do you really believe the WT might be off by as many as 200 years? To me, all those tablets tell me the opposite, that we have a chronology that is made even more sure. We can't even try to maneuver an extra 20 years into it any more without getting caught as pseudo-historians and pseudo-archaeologists. We end up trivializing the rest of our message by being unfaithful in what is least.
You mean that Jeremiah was wrong, or the Watchtower, or both? As long as you merely state vague generalities without evidence you are merely throwing out twisted words and hoping some of them might stick. Not a good or respectable methodology.
Sounds like more haughty pretentiousness. Vague claims of superior knowledge with no evidence. I'm just guessing, but I suspect it will end the way "scholar JW" was found to be lying when he said that evidence about J.A.Brown would prove COJ had blundered, but wouldn't dare show his evidence. When the evidence showed up it proved that "scholar JW" had been lying. Decades of erred perception, and it took people just a few seconds to figure it out when the evidence was finally presented.
You must not have any idea what you are talking about. These tablets are 100% in agreement with the Bible and the secular timeline that has been known and knowable for longer than the WTS has been around.
This is another meaningless "word salad" with pretentious, but slippery dressing.
You are saying that the WT made a  19-year adjustment in 2011 to remain in sync? But you don't want to spell it out for some reason. I would just call your bluff but, yes, I can already see through the dishonesty. The WT never made a 19-year time adjustment in 2011. The WTS clearly wanted to take some advantage of Furuli's lack of honesty by using hints about his work in the 10/1 and 11/1 Watchtower issues, but the WTS couched most of their words in some careful language showing that they realized they would be thoroughly embarrassed if they named the book and scholar who had sullied himself with such dishonest scholarship. You noticed that these Watchtower issues named the reputable books, but would not dare name the source of the discredited theory.
Furuli would never try to defend his theory in public or try to get such a theory peer-reviewed.

I'm one of the readers on this forum and I can judge that you have done, as AlanF noted, almost nothing but dodge and weave and obfuscate and try several different logical fallacies to avoid evidence. When someone asks you a question you refuse to answer. When someone offers you a chance to show evidence you pretend it's a game to see how long you can go without providing it. Then you were caught lying about the evidence. I believe you have been thoroughly disgraced by haughtily and pretentiously claiming to be a scholar and then not even pretending very well.
Since you said above that we can judge for ourselves, I would have guessed you were a teenage Internet "troll." Since I can see you have been doing this for 20+ years, I guess you must not be a teenager.
I'm still entertained however.

You haven't explained why this 604 date is suddenly so important to you. The point about 604 has been made by secular archaeologists, myself, Ann, COJ, Jeffro and others for years, and suddenly you act like this is something you just found out. Have you not been reading anything written on the topic no matter how many times it was mentioned. Also, you now act like it's so important to count this 604 date (+ or - 1 or 2 yrs.) among the other two dates, which is something that people have been saying for nearly 200 years now. As you say, it shouldn't have surprised you at all.
You are playing that dishonest game again where you make a vague statement that doesn't exactly mean anything in English, so that someone might have to guess what you mean. I'm not playing your word-twisting games any more. You will have to explain what you mean by "the continued assumption," and the two ideologies, for example. Yours? Mine? Which differences in this revised WT chronology? How are these assumptions affecting the date of the final destruction of Jerusalem's wall and temple under Nebuchadnezzar?
Yes. Of course it matters. Why would you even have to ask?
So what is your point? That Nabokalassar in this list reminds you of Nabopallassar? The book you are quoting https://books.google.com/books?id=yJLccBK6cDoC is from 1867 before hardly any of the contemporary dated tablets and artifacts were translated and published. The chronology still seemed fluid to many people when they thought it was only based on Ptolemy. The author of this book, "The Sealed Book of Daniel Opened" didn't like 539 BCE as the end of the reign of Nabonidus (and Belshazzar) because he wished that the 70 weeks of years were easier to manage based on his own Bible interpretation. A common problem. The Watchtower tried to do similar things when the secular chronology got in the way of a private interpretation.
But don't forget that the Watchtower still likes 539 BCE. I like 539 BCE. Arauna and Ann O'maly both like 539. Even scholar_JW and AlanF both agree on 539. This author likes a date closer to 488 to replace 539. It's easy to guess why. Because he wants 69 weeks of years, or 483, years to reach closer to the time from the decree of Cyrus so that it' Cyrus who starts the 69 weeks of years, to reach to the Messiah who was born, he says, in 5 BCE. This has been a favorite project of "crank" Bible interpreters for years. Perhaps the Watchtower will go for it one day because it would also move the parousia from 1914 to about 1997 (+/-) or at least to 1964 depending on whether you need to reach Jesus' death or his birth. That's the kind of generation reset some WTS writers probably would have died for, because they could have avoided the flap over the overlapping generation. 
The author makes a lot of errors we would now consider to be stupid. You probably noticed some of them yourself.

What is the opposite of a scholar?

Thanks for providing this. In fact, this entire question, as worded, was what I was originally going to discuss with @Nana Fofana in response to this particular post of hers, so I'll go ahead and do that now:
@Nana Fofana,
First of all it should be obvious that this debate has gone on much longer than 41 years. Among Watchtower readers alone, it has gone on for over 100 years as you can see above. In the May 15, 1922 Watchtower, Rutherford was still dealing with the same issue about the 19 to 20 year "gap" in the Watchtower chronology that does not exist in the actual Biblical or secular evidence. Note this from page 147, which are the opening words in the article called "Chronology:"
"WE HAVE no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. Some claim to have found new light in connection with the period of "seventy years of desolation'' and Israel's captivity in Babylon, and are zealously seeking to make others believe that Brother Russell was in error." Of course, the article goes on to use as its primary proof that Russell (the one and only  faithful and discreet slave) had God's approval and therefore would not have been wrong about this chronology. Still, it does offer a few additional reasons why these dates are correct:
"SOUGHT TO DISCREDIT BIBLE . . . The worldly-wise have always disliked the Bible . . . The adversary [Satan] has always endeavored to deceive people. No doubt he has had much to do towards causing the confusion in the historical records of ancient history." [Always trying to put the argument into a polemic light, so that it appears that whoever is asking is some kind of "Devil" or antagonist to the truth, or an apostate. Some things never change.]  "Practically all agree that B. C. 536 was 'the first year of Cyrus'" [Not a true statement at the time, nor when Russell stated the same, nor is it true today.] "There is no contention about the first year of Cyrus being B. C. 536."  [This was also not a true statement, of course.] "The Bible locates the time definitely as 3522 A. M. ( 606 B. C.), the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Secular historians vary considerably." [This was also a false statement, of course.] "We find the Jews still under the yoke of Babylon, bringing the date down 12 years later, or to 442 B.C. This would make a period of 94 years after the return of borne in 536 B.C. If we add the 70 years to that we have a total of at least 164 years, 606 to 442 B.C. under the king of Babylon." [Obviously false about the king of Babylon and the dates, but it was a way of avoiding the possibility that the 70 years applied to the kingdom of Babylon, as stated in Jeremiah.] "UNRELIABLE SECULAR CHRONOLOGY How can this be harmonized with secular chronology, which states that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in 606 B.C., reigned 43 years, and died in 561 B.C.? We are not called upon to harmonize the Bible with secular chronology any more than we are expected to harmonize the gospel of the Bible with secular creeds." [Notice that Rutherford does not seem to notice that he is relying on secular chronology for his dates, too.] Recapitulating then, the Bible record is conclusive that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar synchronizes with the fourth year of king Jehoiakim, which was the year 3503 A. M. or 625 B. C. [Of course there is nothing "conclusive" here, only evidence that Rutherford wants to use a different secular date than the secular date supported by evidence.] And of course, the main point of the argument is really about Russell, even though it adds some new dates that Russell hadn't mentioned, but which were promoted as supposedly clear and obvious extensions of Russell's original chronology:
"STAMPED WITH GOD'S APPROVAL  It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? . . . it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914." With this in mind, notice how important it must have been to position any questioning of the chronology as angry and prideful Satan-like questioning against a humble and thoughtful Biblical position that had Jehovah's stamp of approval. This is merely a way to "tickle the ears" so that people think they are hearing a "pattern of healthful words." Note how antagonistic the questioner is meant to sound when in the question to Russell the question was characterized like this: "Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light and that you and all DAWN readers have been 'all wrong,' walking in darkness?"
But the actual arguments had been presented in the same scholarly works that Barbour and Russell had depended on, without any antagonism towards those who had used wrong evidence for their dates. There were many different ways of attaching a chronology to the Bible prophecies and Russell himself had admitted this in the past. Some Bible commentators had been discussing these types of discrepencies since the 1850's and 1860's. But it clearly served a purpose to try to present the questioner as antagonistic toward not just Russell, but all people who considered themselves to be seekers of truth and light.
Rutherford did the same thing as you can see in his article. Yet, ironically, the words turned out NOT to be true, even though it was Satan who was behind the questioning and Jehovah who had given his stamp of approval. In spite of this everything that had been said about 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925 - beyond any possibility of erasure - had to be "erased." This includes even what was being said about 1914 at this time. It turned out NOT to be the time of violence and chaos that had been predicted. It turned out NOT to be the time that resulted in the end of the Gentile domination over the Jewish nation as predicted. None of what was predicted for 1914 turned out to be true.

So what did the "Prophetic Times" of December 1870, published by Seiss, actually say?
It mentioned several dates because one of the points was that the 2520 years as a punishment for Israel could be thought of as having many different start dates, due to the fact that there are several important times mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles when Jehovah spoke of a time of special punishment relative to the kings of Israel or Judah. But of all these dates in the 1700's through the 1900's, the others were mentioned only an average of about 1.5 times each. But 1914 is mentioned SIX times in the article. The two columns in the first image represent 606 as the time when Nebuchadnezzar takes Daniel, in approximately his accession year, which was usually considered to be 605, not 606:

Notice that he is generally a year off from the commonly accepted secular dates:

The following are more copy-and-paste excerpts where 1914 was under discussions.


 

We already spoke of John Aquila Brown, and his dates in 584 AD, 622 AD, 1453 AD, 1844 AD, 1873 AD, 1917 AD. Five of the key time spans in Brown's chronology were:
457 BC to 1843 AD (2300 days) 584 AD to 1844 AD, (1260 days) 622 AD to 1873 AD, (1290 days) 622 AD to 1917 AD, (1335 days) 604 BC to 1917 AD, (2520 days) Brown promoted pieces of this particular chronology starting around 1810 to 1827, including 604-1917 in "Even-Tide" (1823). Of course, days were always turned into years, a longstanding practice with a Biblical precedent already stated for periods of 40 days and 390 days.
Charles Taze Russell. Starting in the 1870's and throughout his lifetime,  Russell promoted a similar set of dates. These were the same dates, of course, that N. H. Barbour promoted. Also note that several of these dates sometimes varied by about a year: 1799/1798 AD, 1914/1915 AD. These dates were promoted through the Watch Tower's wide distribution of Russell's books which continued until the early 1930's:
454 BC to 1846 AD (2300 days) - Russell is 3 years different from Brown 539 AD to 1799 AD, (1260 days) - 539 AD*, not a BC date; unrelated to Cyrus) 539 AD to 1829 AD, (1290 days) - Russell says 1829 was the prophesied start of "Millerites"** 539 AD to 1874 AD, (1335 days) - when Jesus returned; start of "parousia" 606 BC to 1914 AD, (2520 days) - Russell is 3 years different from Brown * 539 AD was considered the beginning of Roman Catholic papal rule. From "Thy Kingdom Come" [Millennial Dawn, Studies in the Scriptures], Vol 3, page 81, 82:
It proves that the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom in A.D. 539 was, as clearly indicated by the prophetic measure (1260 years), the exact point of time when this desolating and, in the sight of God, abominable system was "set up." . . . in the short space of fifty years from its small beginning, A.D. 539. We may therefore feel assured that the 1260 years, or three and a half times, of papal dominion, are well and clearly marked at both ends. ** From "Thy Kingdom Come" [Millennial Dawn, Studies in the Scriptures], Vol 3, page 86, 87:
But the "Miller movement" was more than this: it was the beginning of the right understanding of Daniel's visions, and at the right time to fit the prophecy. Mr. Miller's application of the three and a half times (1260 years) was practically the same as that we have just given, but he made the mistake of not starting the 1290 and 1335 periods at the same point. Had he done so he would have been right. On the contrary, he started them thirty years sooner--about 509 instead of 539, which ended the 1335 days in 1844, instead of 1874. It was, nevertheless, the beginning of the right understanding of the prophecy; for, after all, the 1260 period, which he saw correctly, was the key; and the preaching of this truth . . . 

Thanks for providing this. In fact, this entire question, as worded, was what I was originally going to discuss with @Nana Fofana in response to this particular post of hers, so I'll go ahead and do that now:
@Nana Fofana,
First of all it should be obvious that this debate has gone on much longer than 41 years. Among Watchtower readers alone, it has gone on for over 100 years as you can see above. In the May 15, 1922 Watchtower, Rutherford was still dealing with the same issue about the 19 to 20 year "gap" in the Watchtower chronology that does not exist in the actual Biblical or secular evidence. Note this from page 147, which are the opening words in the article called "Chronology:"
"WE HAVE no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. Some claim to have found new light in connection with the period of "seventy years of desolation'' and Israel's captivity in Babylon, and are zealously seeking to make others believe that Brother Russell was in error." Of course, the article goes on to use as its primary proof that Russell (the one and only  faithful and discreet slave) had God's approval and therefore would not have been wrong about this chronology. Still, it does offer a few additional reasons why these dates are correct:
"SOUGHT TO DISCREDIT BIBLE . . . The worldly-wise have always disliked the Bible . . . The adversary [Satan] has always endeavored to deceive people. No doubt he has had much to do towards causing the confusion in the historical records of ancient history." [Always trying to put the argument into a polemic light, so that it appears that whoever is asking is some kind of "Devil" or antagonist to the truth, or an apostate. Some things never change.]  "Practically all agree that B. C. 536 was 'the first year of Cyrus'" [Not a true statement at the time, nor when Russell stated the same, nor is it true today.] "There is no contention about the first year of Cyrus being B. C. 536."  [This was also not a true statement, of course.] "The Bible locates the time definitely as 3522 A. M. ( 606 B. C.), the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Secular historians vary considerably." [This was also a false statement, of course.] "We find the Jews still under the yoke of Babylon, bringing the date down 12 years later, or to 442 B.C. This would make a period of 94 years after the return of borne in 536 B.C. If we add the 70 years to that we have a total of at least 164 years, 606 to 442 B.C. under the king of Babylon." [Obviously false about the king of Babylon and the dates, but it was a way of avoiding the possibility that the 70 years applied to the kingdom of Babylon, as stated in Jeremiah.] "UNRELIABLE SECULAR CHRONOLOGY How can this be harmonized with secular chronology, which states that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in 606 B.C., reigned 43 years, and died in 561 B.C.? We are not called upon to harmonize the Bible with secular chronology any more than we are expected to harmonize the gospel of the Bible with secular creeds." [Notice that Rutherford does not seem to notice that he is relying on secular chronology for his dates, too.] Recapitulating then, the Bible record is conclusive that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar synchronizes with the fourth year of king Jehoiakim, which was the year 3503 A. M. or 625 B. C. [Of course there is nothing "conclusive" here, only evidence that Rutherford wants to use a different secular date than the secular date supported by evidence.] And of course, the main point of the argument is really about Russell, even though it adds some new dates that Russell hadn't mentioned, but which were promoted as supposedly clear and obvious extensions of Russell's original chronology:
"STAMPED WITH GOD'S APPROVAL  It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? . . . it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914." With this in mind, notice how important it must have been to position any questioning of the chronology as angry and prideful Satan-like questioning against a humble and thoughtful Biblical position that had Jehovah's stamp of approval. This is merely a way to "tickle the ears" so that people think they are hearing a "pattern of healthful words." Note how antagonistic the questioner is meant to sound when in the question to Russell the question was characterized like this: "Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light and that you and all DAWN readers have been 'all wrong,' walking in darkness?"
But the actual arguments had been presented in the same scholarly works that Barbour and Russell had depended on, without any antagonism towards those who had used wrong evidence for their dates. There were many different ways of attaching a chronology to the Bible prophecies and Russell himself had admitted this in the past. Some Bible commentators had been discussing these types of discrepencies since the 1850's and 1860's. But it clearly served a purpose to try to present the questioner as antagonistic toward not just Russell, but all people who considered themselves to be seekers of truth and light.
Rutherford did the same thing as you can see in his article. Yet, ironically, the words turned out NOT to be true, even though it was Satan who was behind the questioning and Jehovah who had given his stamp of approval. In spite of this everything that had been said about 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925 - beyond any possibility of erasure - had to be "erased." This includes even what was being said about 1914 at this time. It turned out NOT to be the time of violence and chaos that had been predicted. It turned out NOT to be the time that resulted in the end of the Gentile domination over the Jewish nation as predicted. None of what was predicted for 1914 turned out to be true.

Thanks for providing this. In fact, this entire question, as worded, was what I was originally going to discuss with @Nana Fofana in response to this particular post of hers, so I'll go ahead and do that now:
@Nana Fofana,
First of all it should be obvious that this debate has gone on much longer than 41 years. Among Watchtower readers alone, it has gone on for over 100 years as you can see above. In the May 15, 1922 Watchtower, Rutherford was still dealing with the same issue about the 19 to 20 year "gap" in the Watchtower chronology that does not exist in the actual Biblical or secular evidence. Note this from page 147, which are the opening words in the article called "Chronology:"
"WE HAVE no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. Some claim to have found new light in connection with the period of "seventy years of desolation'' and Israel's captivity in Babylon, and are zealously seeking to make others believe that Brother Russell was in error." Of course, the article goes on to use as its primary proof that Russell (the one and only  faithful and discreet slave) had God's approval and therefore would not have been wrong about this chronology. Still, it does offer a few additional reasons why these dates are correct:
"SOUGHT TO DISCREDIT BIBLE . . . The worldly-wise have always disliked the Bible . . . The adversary [Satan] has always endeavored to deceive people. No doubt he has had much to do towards causing the confusion in the historical records of ancient history." [Always trying to put the argument into a polemic light, so that it appears that whoever is asking is some kind of "Devil" or antagonist to the truth, or an apostate. Some things never change.]  "Practically all agree that B. C. 536 was 'the first year of Cyrus'" [Not a true statement at the time, nor when Russell stated the same, nor is it true today.] "There is no contention about the first year of Cyrus being B. C. 536."  [This was also not a true statement, of course.] "The Bible locates the time definitely as 3522 A. M. ( 606 B. C.), the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Secular historians vary considerably." [This was also a false statement, of course.] "We find the Jews still under the yoke of Babylon, bringing the date down 12 years later, or to 442 B.C. This would make a period of 94 years after the return of borne in 536 B.C. If we add the 70 years to that we have a total of at least 164 years, 606 to 442 B.C. under the king of Babylon." [Obviously false about the king of Babylon and the dates, but it was a way of avoiding the possibility that the 70 years applied to the kingdom of Babylon, as stated in Jeremiah.] "UNRELIABLE SECULAR CHRONOLOGY How can this be harmonized with secular chronology, which states that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in 606 B.C., reigned 43 years, and died in 561 B.C.? We are not called upon to harmonize the Bible with secular chronology any more than we are expected to harmonize the gospel of the Bible with secular creeds." [Notice that Rutherford does not seem to notice that he is relying on secular chronology for his dates, too.] Recapitulating then, the Bible record is conclusive that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar synchronizes with the fourth year of king Jehoiakim, which was the year 3503 A. M. or 625 B. C. [Of course there is nothing "conclusive" here, only evidence that Rutherford wants to use a different secular date than the secular date supported by evidence.] And of course, the main point of the argument is really about Russell, even though it adds some new dates that Russell hadn't mentioned, but which were promoted as supposedly clear and obvious extensions of Russell's original chronology:
"STAMPED WITH GOD'S APPROVAL  It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? . . . it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914." With this in mind, notice how important it must have been to position any questioning of the chronology as angry and prideful Satan-like questioning against a humble and thoughtful Biblical position that had Jehovah's stamp of approval. This is merely a way to "tickle the ears" so that people think they are hearing a "pattern of healthful words." Note how antagonistic the questioner is meant to sound when in the question to Russell the question was characterized like this: "Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light and that you and all DAWN readers have been 'all wrong,' walking in darkness?"
But the actual arguments had been presented in the same scholarly works that Barbour and Russell had depended on, without any antagonism towards those who had used wrong evidence for their dates. There were many different ways of attaching a chronology to the Bible prophecies and Russell himself had admitted this in the past. Some Bible commentators had been discussing these types of discrepencies since the 1850's and 1860's. But it clearly served a purpose to try to present the questioner as antagonistic toward not just Russell, but all people who considered themselves to be seekers of truth and light.
Rutherford did the same thing as you can see in his article. Yet, ironically, the words turned out NOT to be true, even though it was Satan who was behind the questioning and Jehovah who had given his stamp of approval. In spite of this everything that had been said about 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925 - beyond any possibility of erasure - had to be "erased." This includes even what was being said about 1914 at this time. It turned out NOT to be the time of violence and chaos that had been predicted. It turned out NOT to be the time that resulted in the end of the Gentile domination over the Jewish nation as predicted. None of what was predicted for 1914 turned out to be true.

The October 1904 Watchtower, page 296 [Reprints p.3437] included the following as a Question from a Reader. Note especially the first line of the answer:
THE TIME OF HARVEST.
AUTHOR of MILLENNIAL DAWN and Editor of
ZION'S WATCH TOWER:--
Dear Sir,--. . . Now if this, the common reckoning, be correct, it would make the Times of the Gentiles to begin nineteen years later than you estimate, namely, in B.C. 587, instead of B.C. 606;--and this in turn would make those times end nineteen years later than you have reckoned,--in October, A.D. 1933, instead of October, 1914. What do you say to this? . . .
* * *
We reply that there are too many ifs in the proposition, and that they are all abundantly contradicted by facts and Scripture, and are therefore not worthy the slightest consideration.
 

I have to agree. It's very clear that @scholar JW has been dishonest.
Based on a long record of his dishonesty, it does not look promising that he will come clean any time soon. Yet it is clear, too, that he is merely trying to express the Watch Tower Society's position. I think this makes it clear why the WTS has nearly always avoided the evidence, sometimes by misrepresenting the evidence, but usually by just ignoring the evidence. The WTS makes similar bald assertions without ever allowing the evidence to be close enough or clear enough to make a true comparison.

That's true, and we should be glad of it. But you are also talking about a record of what has been said on the forum(s). Remember "evidence"? This isn't the first time you got an idea that was never true, and then even when you quoted the supposed evidence that you still it thought meant one thing, and it turned out that it meant something else entirely, sometimes the very opposite of what you were claiming.

Allen,
Imagine there are 100 people in a room and 98 of them say 2+2=4. Two of them say 2+2=5. Who are the opposers? It's not the 98 who are "opposers." It's the two people claiming they have their own "good" reasons to say that 2+2=5, and it might even be a belief that stands alongside some of the best beliefs one can imagine. Still, if they continue to insist that 2+2=5 then those two persons are the more natural opposers. They are the ones who oppose mountains of overwhelming evidence. Sure, the 98 would "oppose" the idea that 2+2=5, but the more natural "opposers" are the two who oppose the facts and evidence.
Another thing is this idea of "their OWN secular history." It's another sign of not thinking clearly. Secular history and the evidence for it is not something that belongs to the people you oppose. It's not their OWN secular history. You are merely referring to the facts and the weight of the evidence available to all of us, you and me, and billions of other people.  It would be more accurate to say that you oppose people who try to sync the secular evidence to Bible chronology. But, of course, this doesn't make sense because both 539 and 607 are secular dates that you and other opposers of the evidence have tried to sync to a version of Bible chronology.
It's a legitimate concern to wonder whether you can sync the non-Biblical chronological evidence with the Biblical chronological evidence. If you can't then you might consider the following options: 
there might be something wrong with your understanding or interpretation of the Bible, or the Bible is wrong, or there might be something wrong with your understanding of the secular evidence, or the secular evidence is wrong, or it is some combination of the four possibilities above. As you know, Thiele for example, did a pretty thorough job matching up the kings of Israel with the kings of Judah with the secular chronology of Assyria, Egypt and Babylon. But he finally got to a couple points where he just said that the Bible must have it wrong. McFall and others take another pass at it, some in defense of the Bible and some in defense of secular evidence. (And some just to improve Thiele's work, in any way they still can.)
But after finding a solution to 99% of the issues, there is a controversy over this 1% that is still unsolved. It feeds a conflict that the secular data is somehow the enemy of the Bible data. Now, any time someone comes up with something that seems to fit a Bible interpretation, they can now get support for it by just claiming that "opposers" to their interpretation are taking the secular data over the Bible. They have made use of a ready-made propaganda tool. Bible vs. Secular. Just by approaching the problem this way, it's obvious who is going to win among Bible believers.
But what happens when those Bible believers look into the data and evidence for themselves and find that there is no conflict at all? In this case the Bible believers are very happy that the secular data corroborates the Bible data. No problem.
But what happens to that key interpretation that was set up as a supposed conflict to the secular data? What if they built a life or religion around that interpretation? They have a couple of choices. They can look at the data and be honest and humble about it and explain that the evidence doesn't seem to support their interpretation. But this doesn't mean they are immediately required to change their belief. They might be able to admit the strength of the opposing data, but still go through each and every bit of it and still explain why they think their interpretation supersedes the data. This might end up being right or wrong, and honest people would appreciate being given the opportunity to make up their own mind. They might still consider the interpretational theory as a strong possibility. At least it's a more honest way to deal with it.
But what would you think if you saw them do the following?
Perhaps they avoid most of the data, avoid trying to explain the differences, and try to keep other people from seeing the data, even pretending that experts agree with them about the data. Any books or websites that consider the data are presented as apostate, poison, cancerous, "spiritually pornography," etc. They can pretend that they have explained all the opposing data by misrepresenting that data. Perhaps there are 12 strong pieces of data and one of them has a weak point, and they deal only with that one weak point and hope no one notices that they ignored or misrepresented the other 11. They can find unrelated quotes that people have said about different sets of data and hope that their listeners don't notice it was unrelated. They can use two sets of scales to be able to utilize pieces of the evidence that they accept, without explaining why those pieces are any better or worse than the pieces they reject.

In addition to @scholar JW's infamous attempts, I have to mention again that the "Insight" book and other Watch Tower publications have also done something just like it many times, even adding bracketed secular dates of their own choosing to contexts discussing secular chronology which are in complete disagreement with the dates the Watch Tower has added:
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
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; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. *** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***
According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, Zedekiah and other captives were taken to Riblah . . . *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102) *** it-2 p. 359 Medes, Media ***
Following the Median capture of Asshur in Nabopolassar’s 12th year (634 B.C.E.), Cyaxares (called Ú-ma-kis-tar in the Babylonian records) met with Nabopolassar by the captured city, and they “made an entente cordiale.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 93) *** it-2 p. 410 Minni ***
. According to a Babylonian chronicle, in his tenth year of reign (636 B.C.E.) Nabopolassar “captured the Manneans who had come to their (i.e. the Assyrians’) aid.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 91) *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
But a mere three months and ten days thereafter the reign of the new king ended when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (in the month of Adar [February-March] during Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year [ending in Nisan 617 B.C.E.], according to the Babylonian Chronicles). A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) *** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
With reference to Nineveh, a Babylonian chronicle reports: “They carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple (and) [turned] the city into a ruin heap.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 94; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 958) To this day Nineveh is a desolate waste, and in the spring, flocks graze near or atop the mound of Kuyunjik. Date of Nineveh’s Fall. Though effaced from the extant cuneiform tablet that relates the fall of Nineveh, the date for this event, the 14th year of Nabopolassar, can be supplied from the context. It is also possible to place the destruction of Nineveh in the framework of Bible chronology. According to a Babylonian chronicle, the Egyptians were defeated at Carchemish in the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign. The Bible shows this to have taken place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign or in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2) Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E. It was almost as if there was a Watch Tower policy stating that whenever a book is quoted that gives evidence of secular chronology, it is almost always necessary to make it look like it supports Watch Tower chronology even when anyone who reads the books in question can easily see that they do not.

The October 1904 Watchtower, page 296 [Reprints p.3437] included the following as a Question from a Reader. Note especially the first line of the answer:
THE TIME OF HARVEST.
AUTHOR of MILLENNIAL DAWN and Editor of
ZION'S WATCH TOWER:--
Dear Sir,--. . . Now if this, the common reckoning, be correct, it would make the Times of the Gentiles to begin nineteen years later than you estimate, namely, in B.C. 587, instead of B.C. 606;--and this in turn would make those times end nineteen years later than you have reckoned,--in October, A.D. 1933, instead of October, 1914. What do you say to this? . . .
* * *
We reply that there are too many ifs in the proposition, and that they are all abundantly contradicted by facts and Scripture, and are therefore not worthy the slightest consideration.