JW Insider

Just to make it easier to read page 2:
 

The robes story may have shown that A.H.MacMillan was a good story-teller, but didn't care so much for research. He says there was a newspaper story about the occasion in Pittsburgh, but was probably confusing this with a story of some non-Russellite Second Adventists in Philadelphia. All the major Pittsburgh and Allegheny newspapers from the time period still exist and nothing like this was reported in Pittsburgh. The other thing is that the original "white robes" or "ascension robes" stories were probably made up out of whole cloth by non-Adventists making fun of Adventists, continuing since the Great Disappointment of 1843 and 1844, and repeated on a smaller scale among "Barbourite" Adventists in 1873 and 1874, with some Barbourite/Russellite Adventists trying again in 1878 and 1881.
But "ascension robes" were not a real, confirmed part of any of these stories. Biblically, it was the "Lord" who was going to give the robes. Boston newspapers made up stories about clothes manufacturers working overtime to create these robes in time, but there was never any evidence. 
By 1916 however these stories of white "ascension robes" had become an accepted part of the supposed culture of Second Adventists, from outsiders, but had become "true" through repetition. So it's possible that Russell believed they were a useful symbol of his true faith in his imminent ascension. And it's possible that MacMillan writing in the 1950's was recalling events through those later "filters." But at the time, Sturgeon and Rutherford made an effort to distance the "toga" from that interpretation. 
I think it was possible that Russell's mind was gone by then. The type of sickness he had was the close equivalent of being poisoned to die slowly until the mind goes, too.
 

Although many like to imagine and assume that the Biblical symbolism Russell used has something to do with the Masons, and/or that his Biblical study of God's Witness in Egypt had something to do with the Masons, the reality is that neither is of the Masons, any more than the Bible itself is of the Masons.
 
rlctr.blogspot.com-Masonic Symbols.pdf

He joined on a lay-away plan?

He was just dying to be one?

Makes some sense. There seems to have been mix of "city" and "rural" life for the exiles:
(Jeremiah 29:4-7) 4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Become many there, and do not decrease. 7 And seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace you will have peace. Also see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/by-the-rivers-of-babylon-exhibit-breathes-life-into-judean-exile/  which includes information that probably helps explain why so many Jews stayed in Babylon and didn't come back when they were released by Cyrus:
Each document catalogs when and where it was written and by whom, providing scholars with an unprecedented view into the day-to-day life of Judean exiles in Babylonia, as well as a geography of where the refugees were resettled. The earliest in the collection, from 572 BCE, mentions the town of Al-Yahudu — “Jerusalem” — a village of transplants from Judea. “Finally through these tablets we get to meet these people, we get to know their names, where they lived and when they lived, what they did,” Vukosavović said. The texts help dispel the misconception that the Judeans in Babylon were second-class citizens of the empire, living in ghettos and pressed into hard labor. While some toiled in base drudgery, others thrived, owned property, plantations and slaves, and became part of the Babylonian bureaucratic hierarchy. “It teaches us that we weren’t slaves, like we were slaves to the Pharaoh,” Vukosavović said. “It teaches us that we were simply free people in Babylon, living not only in Al-Yahudu, but also in a dozen other cities where Jews either lived or did their business.” I apologize if this has already been referenced. I still have a page worth of the comments to catch up on. However, the idea of "captivity" which was what many Jews feared, did not match up with Jeremiah's prophecy that things could go well with them. Yet, here we have a collection of about 200 texts that helps confirm or corroborate that Jeremiah was right.
 

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT:
(Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . . Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260,  that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with.
Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE.  I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.
 

It's not confusing at all that Jesus said only 1260. If you are saying that Jesus meant something else, just go ahead and clear up why Jesus would only mention 1,260 when he meant something else. This is what I said from the very start of bringing this up. That if we wish to contradict Jesus, we should at least be able to explain why.
This is how people "twist" the scriptures, by claiming that just because Jesus only mentioned 1260 in connection with the Gentile Times, that he meant to say something more than what was mentioned in Scripture. All one has to do is add something to the scroll that isn't there. But is this something you really want to do?
(Revelation 22:18, 19) 18 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll. Jesus spoke of the nations trampling the holy city, Jerusalem, for "appointed times." How long were those appointed times? Jesus connected 1,260 with these appointed times for the trampling of the nations. Jesus didn't mention another length of time. But your argument is that Jesus didn't say ONLY 1260, so that we should conceivably add another length, or lengths of time that we find in other prophecies. Is there some scripture you have in mind that gives you permission to change times and seasons like this? Should you add lengths of time you find in all other prophecies, or only the ones in Daniel?
Since Jesus said ONLY 1260, I suppose by your logic you could add, 1,260 + 1,290 + 1,335 + 2,300 + 2,520. Of course, you really only mean that we should subtract the 1,260 from what Jesus said and add just one of those time periods, to replace it with.
No matter how you wish to manipulate what Jesus said, it's still true that Jesus ONLY connected one time period to the Gentile Times. It would be false to claim otherwise.

No no no @Foreigner - you misunderstand me.
You have called @AlanF a pengabo. That means you and I are friends. Nobody thinks Alan is a big jerk more than me. I was being sarcastic writing what I did and you didn't realize that. I am sorry for that. It is my fault. 
Look at my posts. I have posted two in a row which are nothing but making him look bad by his own mouth - quoting insult after insult of his that he has hurled at other people. He cannot speak without being nasty. And I am just getting started. There are still pages of his taunts I can draw upon. It is unusual that someone is so ugly as he - he is even nasty to you when he says you played "the race card." You can play it all you want as far as I am concerned.
Okay? You don't like him. I don't like him. Nobody with any sense likes him.
When I write I use humor. I use exaggeration. I will make up stories. Sometimes I use sarcasm. It is easy to misunderstand if you are mostly familiar with another language. I told a joke and maybe you thought I was making fun of you. I wasn't. It was just a good joke and I remembered it after I looked up penjango. I had never heard that word before. 
Let me tell you who some of the people here are. You said Ann and I run this site. Neither of us do, though we both comment a lot. I can't stand Ann. It is not personal - personally maybe I would be okay with her. But here she does everything she can to run down Jehovah's Witnesses and their organization. Does she run down even God, like Alan does? I am not sure. I have to go back and check. But we are not friends. And we don't run the website.
The person who runs this site is The Librarian. I am pretty sure he is a Witness, but you can't know anything for sure on the internet. Many people, and apostates are among them, work hard to hide who and what they are, so you never know for sure. Even The Librarian is not the chief owner. The chief owner is Admin, and he may be someone else who comments a lot on other topics,  but it is a pure guess on my part and so I will not say.
Proverbs 6: 16-19 tells about things God hates: Last on the list of seven is: "And anyone sowing contentions among brothers." I never argue with brothers. I will quit a discussion before I do that. Even with non-Witnesses I am nice and avoid arguing. But I am not nice to apostates. At first I am somewhat, until their motives, methods and persistence become manifest. Then, sometimes I will seek to verbally kneecap them. It is not really Christian that I try to do this. But if I am going to be disobedient to counsel and hang where these guys freely roam and launch attacks, I must grant myself that concession.
It will help you if you know that nobody here is a typical Witness. Most are not Witnesses at all. Many are apostates who once were Witnesses but are no longer. Many here who are Witnesses do not hesitate to correct God's organization, something I would never presume to do. That at least makes them atypical Witnesses. The typical Witness of Jehovah will be obedient to counsel and not hang out here. Some will come once or twice to explore, but as soon as they see there are many here that hate Witnesses and their organization, yet they are still given a platform to speak, they will leave. They will think of the Bible verses that says one should not hang out with such persons.
Okay? Here they do nothing but argue, and at best, you might see who is better with the head in this argument or that. But it is the heart that counts. No argument with the head can show what is in the heart.
We are not enemies, Foreigner. I don't want you to think that. I do not denigrate your writing skills. I do not think I am better than you or anyone else. I think well of you that you would even try communicating in a second language. I cannot do it.  I am sorry to confuse you. I didn't mean to.

Foreigner wrote:
Ah, now pulling the race card.
Racist? Not only do people on this board, like JW Insider and me, not know if you're white, brown, black, green, blue or purple -- we don't care.
Let me clue you in: a language is supposed to be used in the way that the great majority of its native speakers use it. That is the definition of proper use. If you, as a non-native speaker, choose not to speak the way natives speak, or have not learned how to speak the way they do, that's your lookout.
I already told you that on page 23 of this thread.
Probably the equivalent of "dick" in English.
You really take the cake as a hypocrite. It is YOU who started this little tiff about language. On page 23 of this thread, you castigated whoever you quoted (apparently Jeffro):
<< ... Daniel and others given as part of tribute along with some temple treasures.* (Grammarly indicates error in given to ARE given)
 
... Nebuchadnezzar takes exiles including Ezekiel, temple treasures, and temple utensils. Jehoiachin placed on throne.
 
(Grammarly indicates error in throne to THE throne)
 
Those who insult writings skills are ONLY fooling themselves!!!! >>
You even emphasized your comments by putting them in red.
Then on page 24 I tried to educate you a little about the various ways in which English is used, and commented that Grammarly deals only with one formal style.
Given your obviously limited English (which is no sin, but arrogance about things you're ignorant of assuredly is) I commented:
<< LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh? >>
You've also made false statements about my postings and those of JW Insider, who has taken great pains to treat your false claims kindly. On pages 26 and 28 you said:
<< There’s too much ignorance thrown in the mix by AlanF, with his attempts to look smart instead of the biggest fool.
When you act like a child, you will be treated as a child. Go play with your rattle, dear!!!!! >>
You even accused JW insider of twisting words.
As the 1950s Warner Brothers cartoon character Yosemite Sam said, "Hey, them's fighin' words!"
Now you're whining and whinging about being taken to task for saying false, unpleasant and quite stupid things about other posters, and having your own words turned back on you.
What are you, 12 years old?
AlanF

Yes. There have already been quotes and links in this topic to discussions of these 200 or so Babylonian tablets "since 2015" that shed more light on the Jewish exiles in Babylon. The primary exhibit is still at the BLMJ ( blmj.org ). It's in Jerusalem with only a few artifacts that overlap with the British Museum.
But you are "flailing wildly" with these false accusations again. How many times have you done this now? Every time you have brought up COJ it's to make some wild claim about what he failed to do in his book. Every time you have been shown to have made a false claim. Worse than that, every time, you have never acknowledged that you made a false claim. And even worse than that, you usually go out of your way to use words that make it seem like it was others were wrong and you were right all along.
I can understand a person who misunderstands what they read, or makes a claim they are pretty sure about based on something they read or heard from a trusted source. But "chronology" has always seemed to be to be one of the worst topics to attract people who just hope to bluster and pretend and distract. I hate to say it but I think it's because the pretender is pretty sure that his or her words will be liked and defended if they at least appear to support the Watchtower's view. Beyond that it seems like the blusterers just hope that others haven't studied the issues very well yet.
Those three different exile years mentioned with reference to these tablets are the same ones I have mentioned, and so has Ann and AlanF. And of course we all know that COJ has discussed and accounted for them. (I sometimes mention a fourth round-up of exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 24th year.) But what's even more interesting, is that the Watchtower rejects the earliest one of these exiles in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. So it's as if it's the WTS that you are really considering to be your biggest skeptic.
I really can't understand why you (and others) have continued to make this same type of mistake with respect to COJ. It must be some kind of reflex. Let's just hope it's NOT supposed to be explained in the way you have projected onto others:
Anyway, I enjoy the banter, but the bickering gets old in a hurry. In a discussion as important as this one (according to the Watchtower), however, this type of error needs to be pointed out in fairness to any who are really interested in truth, and not opposed to it.

It's not confusing at all that Jesus said only 1260. If you are saying that Jesus meant something else, just go ahead and clear up why Jesus would only mention 1,260 when he meant something else. This is what I said from the very start of bringing this up. That if we wish to contradict Jesus, we should at least be able to explain why.
This is how people "twist" the scriptures, by claiming that just because Jesus only mentioned 1260 in connection with the Gentile Times, that he meant to say something more than what was mentioned in Scripture. All one has to do is add something to the scroll that isn't there. But is this something you really want to do?
(Revelation 22:18, 19) 18 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll. Jesus spoke of the nations trampling the holy city, Jerusalem, for "appointed times." How long were those appointed times? Jesus connected 1,260 with these appointed times for the trampling of the nations. Jesus didn't mention another length of time. But your argument is that Jesus didn't say ONLY 1260, so that we should conceivably add another length, or lengths of time that we find in other prophecies. Is there some scripture you have in mind that gives you permission to change times and seasons like this? Should you add lengths of time you find in all other prophecies, or only the ones in Daniel?
Since Jesus said ONLY 1260, I suppose by your logic you could add, 1,260 + 1,290 + 1,335 + 2,300 + 2,520. Of course, you really only mean that we should subtract the 1,260 from what Jesus said and add just one of those time periods, to replace it with.
No matter how you wish to manipulate what Jesus said, it's still true that Jesus ONLY connected one time period to the Gentile Times. It would be false to claim otherwise.

I never mentioned confusion or being confused. If you are confused, you'll have to explain what confused you then. I have to admit that I have no idea what you mean by an "attempt to reverse what [I was] denying by Jesus own words. To be more honest, I know exactly what the words mean, but I also know from your further statements that you don't likely really mean what your words mean. "Reversing what you are denying" would mean no longer denying, therefore "accepting." Thus, this subtle attempt to accept Jesus' own words is somehow a deceitful thing.
If you will look back at the conversation you will see their was no deceit, just an attempt to give and get honest answers, and no deflection on my part. If you want real dialogue perhaps you can be clearer about where you thought there was deflection. I am guessing that this accusation wasn't based on anything, as is usually the case, and it's just a need to blame-shift and project back onto me what probably "hit a nerve" when I pointed out that I am accepting some words of Jesus that you appear to be rejecting or denying. This has become such a predictable form of deflection that it was already anticipated. It's exactly how several other persons have already avoided honest dialogue on this topic.
I noticed that you didn't explain at all what you meant by adding these excerpts from an article on the day-year principle. Yes, some explain it as 538 (AD not BC) to 1798 as your accompanying charts show, from the "beginning" to the "end" of papal power. I think this is ridiculous, but Charles Taze Russell agreed with it. Russell used an adjustment to it: 539 AD to 1799 AD, pointing out that 539 was a midpoint between Constantine and Charlemagne (328 to 800).  -- Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in the Scriptures [Millennial Dawn], Volume III, p. 67-69.
Of course, we don't use the Day-Year principle for any of these prophecies, not the 1260, 1290, 1335, or even the 2300 any more. We only use that principle for the period of 2,520 days that we now derive from the 7 "times" of Daniel 4.
Can you explain why you included this information about 1,260 years? I assume it is not something you believe, is it?

Yes. There have already been quotes and links in this topic to discussions of these 200 or so Babylonian tablets "since 2015" that shed more light on the Jewish exiles in Babylon. The primary exhibit is still at the BLMJ ( blmj.org ). It's in Jerusalem with only a few artifacts that overlap with the British Museum.
But you are "flailing wildly" with these false accusations again. How many times have you done this now? Every time you have brought up COJ it's to make some wild claim about what he failed to do in his book. Every time you have been shown to have made a false claim. Worse than that, every time, you have never acknowledged that you made a false claim. And even worse than that, you usually go out of your way to use words that make it seem like it was others were wrong and you were right all along.
I can understand a person who misunderstands what they read, or makes a claim they are pretty sure about based on something they read or heard from a trusted source. But "chronology" has always seemed to be to be one of the worst topics to attract people who just hope to bluster and pretend and distract. I hate to say it but I think it's because the pretender is pretty sure that his or her words will be liked and defended if they at least appear to support the Watchtower's view. Beyond that it seems like the blusterers just hope that others haven't studied the issues very well yet.
Those three different exile years mentioned with reference to these tablets are the same ones I have mentioned, and so has Ann and AlanF. And of course we all know that COJ has discussed and accounted for them. (I sometimes mention a fourth round-up of exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 24th year.) But what's even more interesting, is that the Watchtower rejects the earliest one of these exiles in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. So it's as if it's the WTS that you are really considering to be your biggest skeptic.
I really can't understand why you (and others) have continued to make this same type of mistake with respect to COJ. It must be some kind of reflex. Let's just hope it's NOT supposed to be explained in the way you have projected onto others:
Anyway, I enjoy the banter, but the bickering gets old in a hurry. In a discussion as important as this one (according to the Watchtower), however, this type of error needs to be pointed out in fairness to any who are really interested in truth, and not opposed to it.

It's not confusing at all that Jesus said only 1260. If you are saying that Jesus meant something else, just go ahead and clear up why Jesus would only mention 1,260 when he meant something else. This is what I said from the very start of bringing this up. That if we wish to contradict Jesus, we should at least be able to explain why.
This is how people "twist" the scriptures, by claiming that just because Jesus only mentioned 1260 in connection with the Gentile Times, that he meant to say something more than what was mentioned in Scripture. All one has to do is add something to the scroll that isn't there. But is this something you really want to do?
(Revelation 22:18, 19) 18 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll. Jesus spoke of the nations trampling the holy city, Jerusalem, for "appointed times." How long were those appointed times? Jesus connected 1,260 with these appointed times for the trampling of the nations. Jesus didn't mention another length of time. But your argument is that Jesus didn't say ONLY 1260, so that we should conceivably add another length, or lengths of time that we find in other prophecies. Is there some scripture you have in mind that gives you permission to change times and seasons like this? Should you add lengths of time you find in all other prophecies, or only the ones in Daniel?
Since Jesus said ONLY 1260, I suppose by your logic you could add, 1,260 + 1,290 + 1,335 + 2,300 + 2,520. Of course, you really only mean that we should subtract the 1,260 from what Jesus said and add just one of those time periods, to replace it with.
No matter how you wish to manipulate what Jesus said, it's still true that Jesus ONLY connected one time period to the Gentile Times. It would be false to claim otherwise.

Maybe "all others" see it different? We know that the Watch Tower Society sees it different from the poster. The Watch Tower used to say that Russell was the ONLY faithful slave, but he was "demoted" from even being a part of the slave, when the WTS changed the definition about five years ago. The slave now started in 1919, per the current view, and no members of the anointed who died before 1919, not even Peter and Paul themselves, were a part of that slave. Russell died in 1916.
I'm not explaining my own view here, which has come up elsewhere. I'm only referring to the WTS view.

Makes some sense. There seems to have been mix of "city" and "rural" life for the exiles:
(Jeremiah 29:4-7) 4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Become many there, and do not decrease. 7 And seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace you will have peace. Also see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/by-the-rivers-of-babylon-exhibit-breathes-life-into-judean-exile/  which includes information that probably helps explain why so many Jews stayed in Babylon and didn't come back when they were released by Cyrus:
Each document catalogs when and where it was written and by whom, providing scholars with an unprecedented view into the day-to-day life of Judean exiles in Babylonia, as well as a geography of where the refugees were resettled. The earliest in the collection, from 572 BCE, mentions the town of Al-Yahudu — “Jerusalem” — a village of transplants from Judea. “Finally through these tablets we get to meet these people, we get to know their names, where they lived and when they lived, what they did,” Vukosavović said. The texts help dispel the misconception that the Judeans in Babylon were second-class citizens of the empire, living in ghettos and pressed into hard labor. While some toiled in base drudgery, others thrived, owned property, plantations and slaves, and became part of the Babylonian bureaucratic hierarchy. “It teaches us that we weren’t slaves, like we were slaves to the Pharaoh,” Vukosavović said. “It teaches us that we were simply free people in Babylon, living not only in Al-Yahudu, but also in a dozen other cities where Jews either lived or did their business.” I apologize if this has already been referenced. I still have a page worth of the comments to catch up on. However, the idea of "captivity" which was what many Jews feared, did not match up with Jeremiah's prophecy that things could go well with them. Yet, here we have a collection of about 200 texts that helps confirm or corroborate that Jeremiah was right.
 

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT:
(Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . . Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260,  that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with.
Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE.  I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.
 

A better idea is to quickly change the title of all your books to "The Fire and the Fury."
An old book called "The Fire and the Fury" by Randall Hansen from 2009 (about Allied bombing in WWII) has suddenly become a best seller in Amazon, in spite of languishing sales for many years. I heard an interview with Hansen where he says he should send a bottle of champagne to Michael Wolff.

That's progress! I can see 586 as a strong possibility too. Of course, most of the fake controversy between 586 and 587 is presented as a way to try to trick those who haven't studied the subject yet. The ruse is used to trick fellow JWs and others into thinking that the secular evidence for this period is just so faulty (over a one year difference!). When in fact the "Insight" book has admitted that this is not really a controversy at all. It's not the secular dating that is questionable here, it's an inconsistency in the Bible's reference to the date. But it's easily explained, as is done here in Insight.
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall. Zedekiah and his men fled but were overtaken in the desert plains of Jericho. Since Nebuchadnezzar had retired to Riblah “in the land of Hamath,” Zedekiah was brought before him there. That's because it's the Bible that says these events happened in his 19th year:
(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. And the Bible refers to several of these events happening in his 18th year:
(Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. There are also some very similar Biblical references to the year of the Judean king, Zedekiah, for example. There is absolutely no issue at all identifying Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in secular chronology, nor is there any problem identifying his 19th year. From the perspective of studying chronology, the entire Neo-Babylonian period is just as "absolute" as is the Persian period. The idea some have tried to promote (that this controversy is due to a weakness in the secular sources) is a hoax.

I see you made a mistake here @allensmith28in the transcription of the URL that @AlanF gave.
I clicked on your "typo" URL that you created when you left out the hyphen. I'm sure this was an accident on your part, but I was surprised that it linked to a Bible timeline that put the Exile from 585 to 487 and ended the Divided Kingdom in 586. I thought it an interesting coincidence that both sites would have such similar URLs. But it turns out that even if you had accidentally made further adjustments to the link, even with your own name in it, for example: 
http://www.biblehistory.com/ALLEN_SMITH_28.htm
. . . that it also would have taken you to the same page with the 586 date on it. You can try it by clicking above.
In fact, you did originally use the actual link AlanF's provided, on which you based your comments, just as you claimed. AlanF was wrong to offer only those three choices about you personally in response to your simple mistake. AlanF was also mistaken in not recognizing that you had gone on to criticise other parts of the page/site, beyond the point he was using and quoting, to point out the chronology information from the map found on this page and other parts of the same website -- which contained information not consistent with AlanF's views.
Of course, even so, your only salient point is that there is some stuff on the site where AlanF's link came from that AlanF clearly doesn't believe in. We've been through this same type of logical fallacy before, where just because a site or page has something wrong on it that other things on the same site or page can't be useful. (Often a "composition" fallacy, sometimes a "poisoning the well" fallacy. Don't know the Latin for @TrueTomHarley's collection.)
You had a chance to leverage the mistake to your own advantage, but then you went off and made some more serious logical blunders of your own.
Yes. Someone used a word like "gobbledygook" with reference to ideas you have promoted or defended, so naturally you have no choice but to blame-shift and redirect that word onto those you oppose. Logically, however, there is no reason to push these words onto "AlanF supporters," whoever they may be.
Also you point out that the American scholar, Edward Robinson, was born in 1794 and that this site is structured by his ideology. Is this really a problem to you? It has already been pointed out, even by you yourself, that we can expect some issues with the chronology of scholars who worked so early in the 19th century, but no one says that this means everything they say is to be under suspicion. After all, the WTS still prefers the support of 19th century scholars over 20th and 21st century scholars. It's off topic, but I have a couple in mind in case you doubt this.
Also, guess who quotes Edward Robinson himself. Yep . . . here's the Awake! magazine, and it's only one of at least a dozen more times he is quoted, especially for Biblical language studies:
*** g80 5/8 p. 17 A Book That Tells What the Future Holds ***
What is the condition of ancient Edom today? “Around us were the desolation of ages; the dwellings and edifices of the ancient city [Petra, the former capital city, carved out of the mountain crag] crumbled and strewed in the dust.”—Edward Robinson, in “Biblical Researches in Palestine.” Then you say, "If this website is going to be used as proof of something, then 19-century ideology is PROOF of ancient events, as well." I think you are making the same mistake that Arauna made in misunderstanding the different uses of evidence, when 'proof' is not part of the equation. Besides, your statement is completely illogical on many levels.
As far as the "Junior" and "6 year old" I think AlanF deserves to be treated just as he treats others, and I'm as entertained as anyone by the back-and-forth slinging. Although, I must say that those particular attempts sound like desperate shifting projections.

Makes some sense. There seems to have been mix of "city" and "rural" life for the exiles:
(Jeremiah 29:4-7) 4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Become many there, and do not decrease. 7 And seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace you will have peace. Also see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/by-the-rivers-of-babylon-exhibit-breathes-life-into-judean-exile/  which includes information that probably helps explain why so many Jews stayed in Babylon and didn't come back when they were released by Cyrus:
Each document catalogs when and where it was written and by whom, providing scholars with an unprecedented view into the day-to-day life of Judean exiles in Babylonia, as well as a geography of where the refugees were resettled. The earliest in the collection, from 572 BCE, mentions the town of Al-Yahudu — “Jerusalem” — a village of transplants from Judea. “Finally through these tablets we get to meet these people, we get to know their names, where they lived and when they lived, what they did,” Vukosavović said. The texts help dispel the misconception that the Judeans in Babylon were second-class citizens of the empire, living in ghettos and pressed into hard labor. While some toiled in base drudgery, others thrived, owned property, plantations and slaves, and became part of the Babylonian bureaucratic hierarchy. “It teaches us that we weren’t slaves, like we were slaves to the Pharaoh,” Vukosavović said. “It teaches us that we were simply free people in Babylon, living not only in Al-Yahudu, but also in a dozen other cities where Jews either lived or did their business.” I apologize if this has already been referenced. I still have a page worth of the comments to catch up on. However, the idea of "captivity" which was what many Jews feared, did not match up with Jeremiah's prophecy that things could go well with them. Yet, here we have a collection of about 200 texts that helps confirm or corroborate that Jeremiah was right.
 

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT:
(Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . . Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260,  that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with.
Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE.  I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.
 

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT:
(Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . . Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260,  that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with.
Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE.  I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.
 

That's progress! I can see 586 as a strong possibility too. Of course, most of the fake controversy between 586 and 587 is presented as a way to try to trick those who haven't studied the subject yet. The ruse is used to trick fellow JWs and others into thinking that the secular evidence for this period is just so faulty (over a one year difference!). When in fact the "Insight" book has admitted that this is not really a controversy at all. It's not the secular dating that is questionable here, it's an inconsistency in the Bible's reference to the date. But it's easily explained, as is done here in Insight.
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall. Zedekiah and his men fled but were overtaken in the desert plains of Jericho. Since Nebuchadnezzar had retired to Riblah “in the land of Hamath,” Zedekiah was brought before him there. That's because it's the Bible that says these events happened in his 19th year:
(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. And the Bible refers to several of these events happening in his 18th year:
(Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. There are also some very similar Biblical references to the year of the Judean king, Zedekiah, for example. There is absolutely no issue at all identifying Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in secular chronology, nor is there any problem identifying his 19th year. From the perspective of studying chronology, the entire Neo-Babylonian period is just as "absolute" as is the Persian period. The idea some have tried to promote (that this controversy is due to a weakness in the secular sources) is a hoax.