JW Insider

If anyone is looking for good links (mostly Google Books) to the Joseph Seiss books I mentioned, the following is a link with about a dozen of his books on it. He wrote even more than those listed. He even contributed articles in the Watch Tower magazine, including two printed in 1905. His book "The Last Times" (1856) is quoted with the very first issue of the Watch Tower, July 1, 1879 (supplement) .
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Seiss%2C Joseph A. (Joseph Augustus)%2C 1823-1904
The book on Napolean is not included in the list because it wasn't written by Seiss, and only references works by Seiss: https://books.google.com/books?id=33Za05MXtpQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
I won't link to the racist book because it is merely a response to Seiss, (Seiss was not the racist.) But it does have some useful info about the monthly periodical "The Prophetic Times" attached below. I have also attached an ad from the Napolean book:

So I'll start with the paragraph in the "Proclaimers" book, highlighting a sentence I just looked into last night:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. 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. The surrounding paragraphs will offer additional details we can get to later, and we've already discussed a small portion of this quote about John Aquila Brown elsewhere. In reading a book by Joseph Seiss last night, I thought this was the book that the paragraph intended. ("A Miracle in Stone") I realized it wasn't, when that book didn't mention 1914 (but the book still could have been hinting at it, or a date very close to it). So I went back and read portions of his "Lectures on the Apocalypse," and another very strange book that ties Astrology (Zodiac) to the Gospel.  I got closer, I thought, with "The Last Times" and "Parable of the Ten Virgins" but still no 1914. (The "Proclaimers" book didn't include the resource, just the hints.) Through Google searches with his name and "Philadelphia" I found a few more items. I wasted some time with a book called: "Luis Napoleon the Destined Monarch of the World and...the Battle of Armageddon" which I saved for quoting a couple points in this topic. Next, Google pointed me to a very racist book from the early 1870's on the status of the "Negro" by "Ariel." That book proved valuable, however, in pointing me to "The Prophetic Times." You can find it here: https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QafJbQ6pCmDNcBvzoMYqXTueLwyuFnEGGCrD6NdXl9F4iVgY1ECNIypPpMkQGVhioTyZqn_BiCKv3P_aGj2SvJyCCH2k_WrZob3PZMpiOr96QhjrIuWh-eBBfW53xAmWPXa1FWHEsemWxZEm9fd2S6ULix_ETXqIMVIv6uSAtfhKdTWxct7YHmpsP7LefUhQj8PK-y_CbsI4GRE32SWs5JPoaQyzXwC8nOgpvP6wr1CK9bgFMRA4YDtQep0FPBJBapGIozDM
The December 1870 issue had it. I'll discuss later.
In the meantime, I decided that it was actually Seiss who seems to have had the most influence on Russell from the perspective of all the multiple angles on the chronology doctrines.

Why another topic about 1914 and 607?
Because we could use a topic where we can all agree a little more easily. Seriously. In this topic, we don't need to worry about whether 607 is correct, or 1914 is correct. No one needs to say why it does or doesn't make sense to them. Let's just see if we can review the possible and probable sources that were influential, and ultimately resulted in 607 and 1914 being accepted as a Bible-based fulfillment of prophecy.
No one needs to jump from another thread about 607 and Biblical evidence over to this one. In fact, I just read a couple of books last night for the first time, and I had some questions that I couldn't find an answer to, and hoped that someone from that other thread, or anyone really, might have run across the resources that might have answered the questions. I'm reading one more book first, and don't think I'll finish it tonight, so consider this topic to be kind of a placeholder for a couple days.
So this is the purpose of the three current threads:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/5510-607-bce-is-it-biblically-supported/ a place to discuss mostly the Scriptural evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51655-607-bce-is-there-any-secular-support-for-the-watch-towers-view/ a place to discuss mostly the Secular evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. And this current one: a place to discuss the sources that were influential in the WTS accepting the 607 date as part of the 1914 doctrine. One place to start is with a couple sentences in the "Proclaimers" book (next post). I personally intend to avoid a certain book by COJ for this topic, to avoid unnecessary controversy, although anyone should feel free to use any resources from anywhere they wish, as long as it appears to be a statement of fact. Again, this is not about questioning the correctness of the doctrine.

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.
 

Why another topic about 1914 and 607?
Because we could use a topic where we can all agree a little more easily. Seriously. In this topic, we don't need to worry about whether 607 is correct, or 1914 is correct. No one needs to say why it does or doesn't make sense to them. Let's just see if we can review the possible and probable sources that were influential, and ultimately resulted in 607 and 1914 being accepted as a Bible-based fulfillment of prophecy.
No one needs to jump from another thread about 607 and Biblical evidence over to this one. In fact, I just read a couple of books last night for the first time, and I had some questions that I couldn't find an answer to, and hoped that someone from that other thread, or anyone really, might have run across the resources that might have answered the questions. I'm reading one more book first, and don't think I'll finish it tonight, so consider this topic to be kind of a placeholder for a couple days.
So this is the purpose of the three current threads:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/5510-607-bce-is-it-biblically-supported/ a place to discuss mostly the Scriptural evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51655-607-bce-is-there-any-secular-support-for-the-watch-towers-view/ a place to discuss mostly the Secular evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. And this current one: a place to discuss the sources that were influential in the WTS accepting the 607 date as part of the 1914 doctrine. One place to start is with a couple sentences in the "Proclaimers" book (next post). I personally intend to avoid a certain book by COJ for this topic, to avoid unnecessary controversy, although anyone should feel free to use any resources from anywhere they wish, as long as it appears to be a statement of fact. Again, this is not about questioning the correctness of the doctrine.

A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it would be useful to discuss the methodology that the Watch Tower Society has historically used to treat this evidence.
I would hope that we can do this without so much side discussions of unrelated topics. To avoid another topic that goes on for 30+ pages where only half of them were on-topic, I would suggest that if we get enough off-topic posts, we merely move them to another more appropriate topic.
The link to the most recent topic on a similar subject is here:


 

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.
 

scholar JW pretendus wrote:
I and others have explained this to you ad nauseum: both dates had been advanced since the 19th century. In the 1940s Edwin Thiele did a major study in "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", and came down on the side of 586 for reasons he explained fairly clearly. Other scholars pointed out that he had missed a few things and came down on the side of 587. The discrepancy is entirely due to the Bible's ambiguity: did Nebuchadnezzar destroy Jerusalem in his 18th or 19th year?
And as I have repeatedly brought out, all descrepancies about 587/586 were resolved in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" by Rodger C. Young ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiImfT-_-rYAhVK62MKHbEuDYAQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcyoung.org%2Farticles%2Fjerusalem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04If9xNNWAyGO0tlNGmHv9 ).
But you know all this, and so your protestations and false dilemmas are deliberate lies.
Most importantly, the 587 date does not occur in a vacuum. As you well know, a host of contemporary Neo-Babylonian documents peg Nebuchadnezzar's accession year at 605 BCE, the capture of Jehoiachin and Jerusalem at 597, Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to 568, and the fall of Babylon to 539 BCE. These are all derived from the same global set of data. The secular data alone fixes these dates, and biblical data supports them. The Bible, of course, is the only source for the date of Jerusalem's fall. And since the Bible puts Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem in his 18th/19th year, and secular/biblical history puts his reign from 605 to 562 BCE, 607 is impossible, and either 587 or 586 must be correct.
Furthermore, as I have said several times before, biblical scholarship advances glacially slowly. Even though Rodger Young's paper is definitive, and he and others have published other papers confirming the 587 date (and set forth all the biblical evidence in support), it takes a long time in scholarly circles for the information to circulate and be evaluated and gradually accepted.
Here is a list of some modern scholarly sources that cite Rodger Young's work:
"The Reliability of Kings and Chronicles", Michael Gleghorn ( https://probe.org/the-reliability-of-kings-and-chronicles/?print=print ):
<< Thiele did not recognize that a problem he had with the texts of 2 Kings 18 is explained by a co-regency between Ahaz and Hezekiah.{17} His chronology also needed slight adjustments for the reign of Solomon and for the end of the kingdom period.{18} In our own studies we have followed the corrections to Thiele published in several articles by Rodger Young.{19} . . .
Young has also written extensively on why 587 BC, not Thiele’s 586 BC, is the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. See “When Did Jerusalem Fall?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 1 (2004): 21-38 >>
In a book review on "From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology", by Andrew E. Steinmann (
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/12/Book-Review-From-Abraham-to-Paul-A-Biblical-Chronology-Part-II.aspx ) the reviewer states:
<< Chapter 8 deals with the divided kingdom. The kingdom period ended with the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 B.C., a date that is in agreement with all Scriptural sources for the period and also with Babylonian records for the years preceding and following the capture. >>
An extensive webpage on modern views of Neo-Babylon chronology ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Last_kings_of_judah_synchronisms_20141118_-_PDF_version.pdf ) contains a fairly large table of dates (not reproducible here) and the following information about "Last kings of judah synchronisms":
<<<<
The 37th year of the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar has been unambiguously dated to 568/567 BC based on an ancient astronomical diary (VAT 4956)[1][2]. That, in turn, allowed precise dating of events described in other Babylonian documents of particular importance for Jewish history:
the last Egyptian intervention in Assyria[3]:20 in the summer of the 17th year of Nabopolassar was recorded on tablet BM 21901[4] and has been linked[5]:12-19[6]:416[7]:108[8]:180 to the biblical battle of Megiddo[9][10] and the death of Josiah[11] (usually dated to Sivan[5]:18[6]:418[7]:108[12] or early Tammuz[7]:108[8]:181 609 BC), the three-month reign of Jehoahaz (while Necho II was engaged in fighting for[13]:43[14][15]:184 Assyrians)[8]:181-182[3]:32 and the subsequent installment of Jehoiakim (placed either before[6]:419 or after[8]:181-182 Tishri 1, 609 BC);
the battle of Carchemish in the spring or summer of Nabopolassar's 21st year mentioned on tablet BM 21946[16] took place around Sivan[17]:25[18]:226 605 BC and was identified as the event spoken of in the book of Jeremiah 46:2[17]:24[18]:226[5]:20[19]:290 while the subsequent conquest of Syro-Palestine by Babylonians has been associated with the siege of Jerusalem described in Daniel 1:1[15]:190[13]:66-67[8]:182ff.[17]:26 which in turn enabled scholars to synchronize a number of events recorded only in the Hebrew Scriptures[20][21][22];
the above mentioned tablet BM 21946 speaks of a military campaign in Syro-Palestine during Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year[23], seizing the city of Yaahudu[17]:72 on Adar 2 (dated to March 15/16 - evening to evening -, 597 BC)[17]:33, capturing its king and appoining there a new ruler. This series of events has been unanimously associated with a story found in 2 Chronicles 36:10[17]:34[8]:190 which deals with a siege of Jerusalem by Babylonians (a few months after the death of Jehoiakim)[24], the ensuing deportation of Jehoiachin and the installment of Zedekiah sometime around Nisan 1[25];
the fact of Jehoiachin, his family and servants having been captives in Babylon in the 13th year of Nebuchadnezzar and onwards has been verified following the publication of the so called Jehoiachin's Rations Tablets[26]
the accession year of Amel-Marduk was dated to 562/561 BC on the basis of various documents the best known of which is the Uruk King List (tablet IM 65066)[27]; this information was in turn used to date king Jehoiachin's release from prison on April 3 (Adar 27), 561 BC[28].
No chronicles recording military activities of Nebuchadnezzar during 593 - 562 BC exist except for tablet BM 33041[29] dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar (568/567 BC) and containing description of his army invading Egypt, which has also been cited in the context of predictions found in Ezekiel 29:17-20[30][31][32]. Due to this scarcity of extrabiblical sources one of the most important dates in Jewish history relating to the destruction of Jerusalem[33][34] is a matter of debate with some scholars favouring 587 BC[35][36] while others opting for 586 BC[37][38]. Neither view seems to be a majority[39]:21 and the interpretation depends on a number of factors, especially:
assuming either the accession year system or the non-accession year system for the last kings of Judah;
counting regnal years of the last Jewish rulers from either Nisan 1 or Tishri 1;
chossing either Adar or Nisan 597 BC as the beginning of king Zedekiah's reign and Jehoiachin's exile[40].
An indepth analysis of the subject seems to favour the 587 BC solution at the same time showing that the last kings of Judah may have employed Tishri-based non-accession year system[39]:21-38.
. . .
[39] Young, Rodger C. (March 2004). "When Did Jerusalem Fall?". JETS 47 (1).
>>>>
And of course, you're well aware that the most modern scholarly references prefer 587 over 586. For example,
"The Cambridge Ancient History" (Second Edition, Volume III, Part 2, 1991) on page 234 says that Jerusalem fell "25 August 587" BCE, and a footnote says that other authors date the fall to 15 August 586 BCE.
A quick internet search using Google Scholar for "587 jerusalem" yields the following, among about 60,000 hits:
"Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 b.c.", Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Volume 114, 1982 - Issue 1
"The Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.",  R. E. Clements, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 30, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 421-436
"Guilt and Rites of Purification Related to the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.", Walter Harrelson, Numen, Vol. 15, Fasc. 3 (Nov., 1968), pp. 218-221
"The Archaeology of the East Slope of Jerusalem and the Terraces of the Kidron", Lawrence E. Stager, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Volume 41, Number 2 | Apr., 1982: "The Neo-Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 587 B.C."
"The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions",  Henry Cattan, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Spring, 1981), pp. 3-15: "... destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC, Jerusalem was then successively occupied by the Persians ..."
"The Bible and Western Culture", Sam Armato, Author House, 2014: "587 Jerusalem sacked, temple destroyed, Zedekiah taken prisoner, and Judah absorbed into the Babylonian empire."
And some web pages using Google and "587 jerusalem":
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC).html
<<In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 BC. . .
The Babylonian Chronicles, published in 1956, indicate that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time putting an end to the reign of Jehoaichin, on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BC.[11]
There has been some debate as to when the second siege of Jerusalem took place. There is no dispute that Jerusalem fell the second time in the summer month of Tammuz (Jeremiah 52:6), but William F. Albright dates the end of Zedekiah's reign and the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BC, but Edwin R. Thiele offers 586 BC.[12]
Thiele's reckoning is based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which was occasionally used for the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his zeroth year; his first full year would be 597/596 BC, and his eleventh year, the year that Jerusalem fell, would be 587/586 BC. Since Judah's regnal years were counted from Tishri in autumn, that would place the end of his reign and the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 586 BC.[12][13]
However, the Babylonian Chronicles support the enumeration of Zedekiah's reign on a non-accession basis. Zedekiah's first year, when he was installed by Nebuchadnezzar, was, therefore, in 598/597 BC according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar. The fall of Jerusalem, in his eleventh year, would then have been in the summer of 587 BC. The Babylonian Chronicles allow the fairly precise dating of the capture of Jehoiachin and the start of Zedekiah's reign, and it also provide the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's successor Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach) as 562/561 BC, the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity according to 2 Kings 25:27. The Babylonian records, related to Jehoiachin's reign, are consistent with the fall of the city in 587 BC and so are inconsistent with a 586 date. >>
http://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade18-1-05
"Jerusalem Fell in 587 Not 586 BC" -- By: C. Ermal Allen
http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/faculty/thomas/classes/rgst116b/JewishHistory.html
"The kingdom of Babylon conquered Judah in 587 BCE."
We also know that Josephus clearly dated the beginning of Temple reconstruction after the Return to Judah to Cyrus' 2nd year, and Ezra dates it to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE, and Josephus states, in Against Apion, Book I, Chapter 21:
<< Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. >>
Going back 50 years from 537, we get to 587 BCE.
Given the above information, there is no reason whatsoever not to accept 587 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
You continue to misrepresent the situation, which I have rectified with the above information.
No blame, just the facts. As shown below, the Bible most certainly contains an apparent ambiguity. But modern scholars have resolved it with real evidence, rather than pretending it does not exist. Again I refer the reader to Rodger Young's paper for an in-depth look.
Very simple: "WT scholars" ignore the many problems. And because the 1914 doctrine requires 607, that's what they've settled on.
The fact that the Bible itself is ambiguous on the date of Jerusalem's destruction is easily illustrated with two quotations from Jeremiah:
<< . . . in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard . . . came into Jerusalem. 13 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem. . . 15 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. >> -- Jer. 52:12-15
<< In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. >> -- Jer. 52:29
So which is it? Did Nebuchadnezzar take exiles in his 18th or 19th year?
This is the fundamental ambiguity the Bible presents regarding the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Bible commentators have wrestled with this for centuries. Only relatively recently have the many thorny problems been solved by proper scholars such as Rodger Young -- and "WT scholars" have ignored most of the problems.
     
As I said, biblical scholarship moves slowly. But as I showed above, more and more modern scholars are moving away from the 586 date and Thiele's handful of unresolved issues that led to his acceptance of 586, given that Young and others have resolved them.
     
 
Proof of my above statements:
The WTS knew that the 536 and 606 BCE dates were wrong for many years prior to 1943. The 1917 book The Finished Mystery listed 607 BCE as the start of the Gentile times. The March 13, 1935 Golden Age listed on page 369 both 537 BCE for the "Edict of Cyrus" and 607 BCE for the start of the Gentile Times. One of Russell's trusted lieutenants, P. S. L. Johnson, later wrote that in 1912 he approached Russell with the information that 606 was wrong, and 607 was the correct date, but Russell ignored it. In 1913, British Bible Student and confidant of Russell, Morton Edgar, published "Great Pyramid Passages", in which he also used 607 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The two books of Edgar and his brother John were widely read among Bible Students, and Russell and other "WT scholars" would surely have known of Edgar's contributions to WTS chronology.
Many scholars over the centuries accepted 536 BCE as Cyrus' first year, and it was accepted as such at least as far back as the 17th century. For example, the famous Bible chronology given by Bishop Ussher used that date. So did the chronologies given by the many commentators who engaged in prophetic speculation that Barbour and Russell so heavily relied upon, such as E. B. Elliott and Joseph Seiss. But Barbour and Russell gave no references in their 1877 book "Three Worlds" to any scholarly works that would support their claim about 536 BCE. They also claimed that Ptolemy's canon supported a date for Nebuchadnezzar's first year as being "nineteen years before the seventy years captivity of Jerusalem." Their book does support Nebuchadnezzar's accession year as being nineteen years before Jerusalem's destruction, but their chronology implies that Nebuchadnezzar's first year was in 625 BCE, whereas Ptolemy's canon implies 605 BCE for his accession year.
The table below shows three reference works that had put Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 605 or 606 BCE; other scholars of the time agree closely with these dates. Given the attention to detail Barbour and Russell showed elsewhere it seems almost impossible they could have missed this point. It seems they simply wanted to believe that their interpretation of the 70 years was correct, and they ignored, at least in print, all evidence against their interpretation. It is enlightening that they claimed Ptolemy's canon supports the 536 BCE date, but were silent about what the canon implies for the actual date of Nebuchadnezzar's first year. They were also silent about scholarly support of dates for the destruction of Jerusalem, which the table below shows scholars said occurred in 588 to 586 BCE, whereas Barbour and Russell claimed it occurred in 606 BCE.
An examination of some scholarly works available in the latter half of the 19th century proves Barbour and Russell's claim that their dates were firmly established was not true. Virtually every reference work used a slightly different set of dates for key events in the Neo-Babylonian period, but they generally differed by only one to three years. The following table shows three sets of dates for important events from this period, from reference works available in the period in which Barbour and Russell, and later Russell alone, wrote. These are: McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, 1871; Smith's Bible Dictionary, William Smith, 1864; Encyclopaedia Biblica, Cheyne and Black, 1899. Compare these with the currently accepted dates, which are also listed. See also Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Brown University Press, Providence, 1956, 1971.
    Event                              McClintock   Smith's Bible   Encyclopaedia    Current
                                             & Strong's     Dictionary         Biblica
Nebuchadnezzar's accession   606           605                605                      605
Jehoiachin's deportation           598           597                597                      597
Jerusalem's destruction            588           586                586                      587/6
Babylon's fall                               538           539                538                      539
Cyrus' 1st year                            538           538                538                      538
Return of Jewish exiles             536           536                538                      538/7
From the table it is clear that Barbour and Russell's key date of 536 BCE for Cyrus' first year was not universally accepted, since it is not listed in any of these references. They could have chosen any of the dates as a basis for their calculations, but only by choosing 536 BCE could they claim that six thousand years of human history ended in 1873, which Barbour had done as early as 1868.
This is yet another example where you use weasel words to convey a false impression. You mention "recent scholarship that began in 1942" as if that were new to the world of scholarship, whereas it was only "new" to Fred Franz -- and it was not even "new" to him, because the reality is that Franz merely began to take account of it in his writings in WTS literature in 1944, whereas it was actually known to "WT scholars" since 1912 and to secular scholars long before that.
In your previous post you wrote a grossly misleading statement:
<< and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago. >>
The fact is that they did not "establish" 607 as a precise date, but merely stated that it was a precise date
You imply that "WT scholars" came to recognize their 607 date only a bit after some new scholarship appeared in 1942. Yet in the above exposition I've proved that these "scholars" knew the "correct" date as early as 1912. And in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower an extensive series of articles was published that contained a chart showing that the correct information was known by "the chronologers of Christendom" at least as far back as 1907 (The Catholic Encyclopedia is referenced, showing Nabonidus' reign as 555-539 BCE).
Furthermore, your reference to "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations" is flawed. No such reference is listed anywhere in WTS publications, so far as I can see, but searching the Internet brings up an apparently equivalent study in "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization (SAOC)" in an article "Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45" by Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein ( https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/saoc/saoc-24-babylonian-chronology-626-bc-ad-45 ), who also in 1942 published their booklet by the same title, which has become the most accepted modern reference on Babylonian chronology. So far as I can see, the 1942 booklet is virtually identical to the 1942 SAOC article.
This material by Parker and Dubberstein also proves that correct dates for the Neo-Babylonian period were known long before 1942. The introduction on the above-linked page states:
<< Recent additions to our knowledge of intercalary months in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods have enabled us to improve upon the results of our predecessors in this field, though our great debt to F. X. Kugler and D. Sidersky for providing the background of our work is obvious. >>
Francis Xavier Kugler published his most significant work (in German, several volumes) in 1907-1924 in "Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel" (something like "Astronomy and Astro Services(?) in Babylon"). Kugler in turn based some of his work on the late-19th century writings of Strassmaier and other scholars.
Assuming that Jehovah was on top of things, surely he would have guided the eminent scholars in the Watch Tower organization to the correct information immediately upon it becoming available in the 19th century, rather than waiting until 1944.
The fact that no such guidance occurred proves that "WT scholars" are as disconnected from God as you are.
Not a bit. What troubles me is when supposed scholars lie in God's name, as I've shown that Mommy Watch Tower and you are so proficient at.
Yes.
Not in the way that Mommy Watch Tower claims. The population killers (earthquakes, famine, pestilence, war) that it claims have been operating on an unprecedentedly massive scale since 1914 are simply not here. The fact that we are experiencing an unprecedented population explosion is unassailable proof.
JWs continue to mistake what Mommy Watch Tower claims for what the Bible says.
Nonsense. See above.
AlanF

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.

I think you should read what I said again, unless this just another example of blame-shifting or projection. My point was that you seemed to have been exploiting the word "own." As you appear to now admit. You at least understand that it is possible to "exploit" the word. That was my point.

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.

@Nana Fofana,
This was addressed to you, @Nana Fofana, but with reference to my own discussions with @AllenSmith on this forum and jw-archive before this one going back 3 years. @Anna has already counseled me on my habit of responding to posts meant for other people, but I think I should make another exception here.
I do happen to know all those discussions quite well, and I can tell you with assurance that AllenSmith is playing a deceitful game with you here, as he tries to do with everyone, Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike. By purposely not being clear, he attempts a kind of plausible deniability each time he is caught. @Arauna pegged him perfectly, if inadvertently, when she said the following in this thread, referring to someone else.
And again, referring to someone else she said the following, which perfectly describes someone who does not care for real scholarship even if one professes it. She also mentions one who won't show the reasonableness to look at all aspects of a subject, and who always goes back to her old arguments even if good arguments are given.
AllenSmith has, indeed, "posed a new theory." He has spoken about it, given several details of it here, and even mentioned here that he has had such a theory published by a ghostwriter for reasons he stated, just two weeks ago.
You can reconstruct some of this thesis by statements that AllenSmith has made about it himself in the last three years. But it is better to ask him of course because there are some seeming contradictions and I'm sure there is much more to the thesis than the portions he has revealed so far.
If he is willing to explain further, I'm sure you will see that it is an interesting theory, but it is also pretty clear that most JWs would see it as doing exactly what AllenSmith has called "deceptive:"
I don't consider his theory deceptive at all, but if he is willing to explain it, I do believe you will see that it contradicts too many Biblical facts. For example, potentially equating Nebuchadnezzar II with Nabopolassar, and making "Nebuchadnezzar the Great" the same as Nebuchadnezzar III might have some coincidental support here and there in later works. (AllenSmith has pointed to the book of Judith and its references to "Nebuchadnezzar" and also a 19th century "typo" in a scholarly work.) But it is not directly evidenced in any contemporary Babylonian artifacts. Also, what does AllenSmith do with the Bible's data that Evil-Merodach followed Nebuchadnezzar in the 37th year of Jehoicachin's exile? This is a fact that perfectly fits the "secular" and "Biblical" evidence, but not AllenSmith's thesis.
(Jeremiah 52:31) Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah and brought him out of prison. You would have to drastically shorten the reign of "Nebuchadnezzar the Great." This might clarify why AllenSmith tries to discredit the contract tablets, especially the Egibi tablets, too. That's because the Egibi tablets agree with the Biblical chronology, but not the Watchtower chronology or AllenSmith's proposal. As Insight says:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. By the way, much better examples of this kind of "deceptive spin" in linking WT chronology with secular chronology were found in the first few posts by @scholar JW in this thread, and which matched the first arguments he put forward in a previous thread, too. Here's an example. See if you can see it:
 

@Nana Fofana,
This was addressed to you, @Nana Fofana, but with reference to my own discussions with @AllenSmith on this forum and jw-archive before this one going back 3 years. @Anna has already counseled me on my habit of responding to posts meant for other people, but I think I should make another exception here.
I do happen to know all those discussions quite well, and I can tell you with assurance that AllenSmith is playing a deceitful game with you here, as he tries to do with everyone, Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike. By purposely not being clear, he attempts a kind of plausible deniability each time he is caught. @Arauna pegged him perfectly, if inadvertently, when she said the following in this thread, referring to someone else.
And again, referring to someone else she said the following, which perfectly describes someone who does not care for real scholarship even if one professes it. She also mentions one who won't show the reasonableness to look at all aspects of a subject, and who always goes back to her old arguments even if good arguments are given.
AllenSmith has, indeed, "posed a new theory." He has spoken about it, given several details of it here, and even mentioned here that he has had such a theory published by a ghostwriter for reasons he stated, just two weeks ago.
You can reconstruct some of this thesis by statements that AllenSmith has made about it himself in the last three years. But it is better to ask him of course because there are some seeming contradictions and I'm sure there is much more to the thesis than the portions he has revealed so far.
If he is willing to explain further, I'm sure you will see that it is an interesting theory, but it is also pretty clear that most JWs would see it as doing exactly what AllenSmith has called "deceptive:"
I don't consider his theory deceptive at all, but if he is willing to explain it, I do believe you will see that it contradicts too many Biblical facts. For example, potentially equating Nebuchadnezzar II with Nabopolassar, and making "Nebuchadnezzar the Great" the same as Nebuchadnezzar III might have some coincidental support here and there in later works. (AllenSmith has pointed to the book of Judith and its references to "Nebuchadnezzar" and also a 19th century "typo" in a scholarly work.) But it is not directly evidenced in any contemporary Babylonian artifacts. Also, what does AllenSmith do with the Bible's data that Evil-Merodach followed Nebuchadnezzar in the 37th year of Jehoicachin's exile? This is a fact that perfectly fits the "secular" and "Biblical" evidence, but not AllenSmith's thesis.
(Jeremiah 52:31) Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah and brought him out of prison. You would have to drastically shorten the reign of "Nebuchadnezzar the Great." This might clarify why AllenSmith tries to discredit the contract tablets, especially the Egibi tablets, too. That's because the Egibi tablets agree with the Biblical chronology, but not the Watchtower chronology or AllenSmith's proposal. As Insight says:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. By the way, much better examples of this kind of "deceptive spin" in linking WT chronology with secular chronology were found in the first few posts by @scholar JW in this thread, and which matched the first arguments he put forward in a previous thread, too. Here's an example. See if you can see it:
 

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.

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.

The point of writing on this kind of topic is for clarification. These were only a few examples of literally 2,500+ times when a secular date was used that differed from the evidence for that secular date with no explanation as to why.

If you had always read that the Battle of Hastings was in 1066, what would you think if you read a new set of history books that always said it was 1046, but with no explanation? In some cases this new date was seemingly listed to be even more accurate by saying it was was October 14, 1046. Then in an attempt to show that there is scholarly backup for the 1046 date, a source is quoted that shows that, yes, it happened on October 14, but it put 1046 in brackets, even though the scholarly book said 1066 elsewhere. In cases like this, especially if there is a pattern that can be confusing, it is important to clarify that this set of brackets was not in the original.
The following is from a book on an unrelated topic, but it speaks to the same types of things that might need academic clarification:

And this of course goes both ways, especially if it is something that should be clarified:

 

I didn't say I couldn't remember stating this. I said I never stated it. I couldn't have stated it because it is not a true statement.

It seems that the Watch Tower Society has finally bowed to the scientific evidence and now admits that evolution is true. Note these frank admissions in Watch Tower publications:
"The Bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".
"Evolution is true".
"Evolution is true . . . evolution is true . . . evolution is true".
"Evolution is true" and "The Bible is myth".
"The theory of evolution is true".
And the history book "Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" has moved the history of the Watch Tower organization back by 100 years, now saying that:
"In [1776], an article written by Charles Taze Russell was published in the magazine Bible Examiner."
"Beginning in about [1776], arrangements were made each year by the Bible Students for commemoration of the Lord’s death."
"Ever since [1776] the year [1874] had been Scripturally identified as a turning point in human history."
Note: this post was composed using "The Scholar JW Manual of Style".
AlanF

Thinking about this further from a legal perspective, it was a lawyer who stated (Rom.2:14-15):
"For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.  They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused."
Wouldn't this seem to add a perspective to the obvious connection between various ancient legal codes?

Good points and good questions, too. I am just working through some of this material myself. Last fall, I clicked a few pages onto my iPhone of several books to check out in full at a later time. These included Wright's (2009) "Inventing God's Law - How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi." The book is partially previewed on Google Books. Some of the other pages of material are only on my iPhone, though. I'm not planning to buy the book. It's at several libraries.
I should say that the book appears to break new ground on tying the Mosaic Law (he abbreviates CC, for Covenant Code) to the Laws of Hammurabi (he abbreviates LH). But a book that breaks new ground is also, in part, only one voice against several. So it would be good to acknowledge a few of the other major views about the relationship between CC and LH. Note, too, that LH becomes a kind of shorthand not just for the Laws of Hammurabi exclusively, but also the Laws of Eshnunna and other similar sets of laws with a relationship to LH.
One point is that we don't really know the exact dates of either the LH or exactly when the last adjustment was made to the CC either. Another point is that we should expect similarities in both oral traditions, legal needs, and legal practice with respect to the lifestyle of Semitic and Mesopotamian nations. All had similar issues with respect to slavery, marriage, divorce, murder, rape, theft, land, livestock, accidents, etc.. As Wright himself mentions:
For example, the Covenant Code, the Laws of Hammurabi, the Laws of Eshnunna, and the Roman Twelve Tables, all have burglary laws that speak about killing a burglar (see chapter 9). These cannot all be related by literary influence. Several of the other points made in comparison to the view of other scholars are not applicable to a faith-based view of the scriptures (textual redaction theories, etc.).
Wright makes a distinction between the "do this/do that" (apodictic) laws, and the "if this...then that"(casuistic) laws, and this distinction is useful for his thesis. But you are apparently right, @Gone Fishing, that the 10 commandments themselves stand outside these sets of laws as unique. 

It's not about intelligence, Allen. It's about integrity and honesty.

I just made a video that expresses my current general overview of the secular evidence. If it's not totally accurate, I can make appropriate changes to it.
Here it is...

Your browser does not support the HTML5 video tag.

The video in the last post is just over 3 minutes long, and doesn't get into any specifics about the archaeological evidence. For those who can't see the video, the image below presents the basic claims for the dates of the period in question. Persian rule actually goes on until about 330 BCE. Also note that the dates below include the actual first year that the king acceded to the throne (accession year) even if it was not his first, full year as king (regnal year). Also, the tablets and cuneiform inscriptions were picked to indicate variety, not necessarily their importance to the chronology of each king.
The basic idea of the video is the following, mostly taken straight out of the video:
The entire Neo-Babylonian  and Persian time periods are interlocked and intertwined.
30,000 dated tablets cover the Neo-Babylonian period.  Each is dated with the current king’s year, month & day.
Also, there are contemporary astronomical diaries, king lists, letters and royal inscriptions that perfectly interlock with these 30,000 dated tablets.
There is no difference in the evidence for each period: the The Neo-Babylonian and the Persian.
You canÂ’t accept one date and reject another. All the dates are from the same evidence:
539 is just as accurate as 626, 587, or 598.  If you accept one, you are accepting them all. So, 539, the start of Cyrus’ rule over Babylon, is no more or less accurate than:
•        626 for the start of Nabopolassar
•        587 for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple
•        537 for Cyrus’ 2nd full year over Babylon
Accepting 539 is the same as accepting that there were 50 years from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18th-19th year to CyrusÂ’ 2nd-3rd year.
Yet, a certain Bible interpretation [the "607 Theory"] requires that we, instead, count a 70-year period that must run from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18th-19th year to the 2nd-3rd year of Cyrus.
 

Yes. It's the same as an article that Brother C.Aulicino had been working on for years. He had been giving most of these points in a couple of non-outline public talks. I was hoping to find that they had been recorded somewhere, because he has about two hours on this same material. He has collected old books (commentaries, etc) on the subject for years. Excellent points.