JW Insider

True. The last person at the Watch Tower Headquarters who was called Pastor, evidently never owned a car. The newspaper article starts out: Pastor Russell of the Peoples Pulpit Association today declared that he would use the yacht, Angel, presented to him by his association . . .

Dear TrueTomHarley,
have you gone from criticizing my posts to get to give me advice on how to "put me better" in front of others?
Well, I thank you for this and I will take your advice to heart.
In the next article I will write I will only ask a series of questions. Can I count on your Scriptural answers?
I do not find myself indispensable and if I "end up under a truck", I am sure that other people (before me or after me, and perhaps better than me) would raise the same issues, the same "problems".
This is one more reason to focus on the contents of a speech and not on the person.
I agree with you that the most important thing is to be focused on the example of Christ. This is undoubtedly the most important and perhaps the most difficult thing to achieve.
I must point out that one aspect of Christ's personality (among many other aspects) was love for the Word of God.
I do not think I have "arrived" or even a "right" person.
I have so many things that I must improve and what I have understood (if I have understood it) is thanks exclusively to the undeserved kindness of God.
Also for this reason I feel like my duty to speak to my brothers, despite the difficulties and criticisms, of these things.
I believe that it is very important.
I thank you for the Scriptural examples you mentioned and I thank you sincerely for the concern you show towards me.
I assure you that I take great care not to become a victim of my own speeches.
I question myself very often.
Simply, my love for the Word of God urges me to look for answers in the Bible, only in the Bible.
If I am convinced through the Scriptures that certain of my conclusions are wrong, I assure you that I change immediately and even everything.
I have no interest, no one, to make me followers.
If you have an important message to give to people, you try to do it, is not it?
You try to give this message even if you know it will be "hard to accept" is not it?
I assure you that I would have spared many "headaches" if I had avoided writing certain things.
it is much easier to "keep quiet" than to start certain conversations.
So I thank you very much for your advice on how to start a conversation.
I will take these advice to heart but I will continue to talk about the things I have understood because this is true respect for the Word of God.
And indeed I encourage all those who read this message to participate in the conversation not "to cheer a team" nor starting from the principle to establish "who is right" but only with the aim of better understanding some prophecies of the Word of God.
And, be it clear, this also includes the possibility of having to accept (only the possibility) some truths that are very different from those that have been taught to us.
To accept, one must be mature.
Thanks again, TrueTomHarley, and so I hope I can start a frank and respectful conversation only with the Word of God.

You did not respond to any inquiries about your ministry.
Why don't you try the following? I stumbled across it once. It has transformed my ministry. Maybe it will help yours.
Say something like: "I'm hoping for a minute of your time, no more. I will read a scripture, you tell me what you think, and I am gone! Good idea?" (it may be rude to do this in countries where they insist on palaver, but the U.S. is not one of those countries)
If they say no, I am true to my word and leave. A surprising number will say yes - it is not much you have asked for and you have put a time limit on your own call.
Once you read whatever you've selected, add a sentence or two explaining why you read it. At this point, you have given a substantial witness. Punt. Say something like: "the next move is yours and you don't have to make one. If you have observations, questions, comments, we can talk a bit - that's why Witnesses come. Otherwise, thanks for you time, and I'll move on."
If you truly love the word of God and are suspicious of anything from men, I would think that you would love this technique. You may not like the following, but it is not required: If they indicate they can spare a few minutes, I will often start them a video, with the comment: "this runs almost 4 minutes, but you don't have to listen to it all. The minute it gets boring, hand it back." Some do, but not many.
The videos are not the last word on anything but they cover an important idea and develop it. You can then go anywhere you want. I often leave at that point, unless specifically asked to stay. I make use of the card a lot directing to the website. 
Full disclosure: I don't like most of the sample presentations I see enacted at the meetings trying to arouse interest in this or that magazine. I will be happy to see them go. It will mean more emphasis on actually teaching the Bible. 
I didn't read closely most of your dissertations on prophesy. This is not to disrespect you. But you could be hit by a truck tomorrow and then where would I be? It is not wrong for you to look deeply into aspects of God's word. It is even commendable. But you give the appearance, perhaps without intent, of setting yourself up as a teacher. It is immodest to do so. It is at least immodest to rebuke those who have a great deal to show for their stewardship. You didn't respond to my conjecture that you are a young man. I am therefore more convinced that you are - it shows between the lines. You can tell a lot by not just what someone says but also by what he does not say - places he does not go. A young man need not be told to "shut up." I don't think I have done that, though there may be something that can be taken out of context. 
But Elihu waited a long long time before addressing older ones who actually did need it. And Moses struck out to fix things, only to find his real contribution would not come for 40 years. And a young Jesus amazed his elders with his answers and with his own questions, not with his dissertations.  Even he did not just spout off before these older ones - he reserved that for later when he was better equipped and had grown and had actually accomplished something by way of kingdom preaching and disciple-making. 
I am a little worried that while you look deeply into aspects of God's Word, it is the whiz-bang cool passages you delve into. Spend more time delving into the ones less glamorous having to do with putting on the personality of the Christ. I say it not to put you down, but to ensure that your undeniable talent does not become a snare for you.
 

As you already mentioned, the "Kingdom Ministry" in September 2007 answered this question by saying: " 'the faithful and discreet slave' does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight."
I wonder how they could have known that for sure. Did they take a survey of 9,500 different persons? After all, in 2007 the "faithful and discreet slave" consisted of about 9,500 persons who all claimed to be part of that "faithful and discreet slave." And the Governing Body who also claimed to be part of that slave, claimed in 2007 that all the persons who were of the anointed remnant class were included in that slave class, not just the Governing Body. 
It was not until June 2009, that the Watchtower claimed that, even though all the anointed remnant were still part of that slave class, that only the Governing Body could represent them in "giving food at the proper time." To prove it, a scripture was quoted that had previously been used to prove exactly the opposite. The full context quoted should make it clear why this passage could be used to show that all the anointed remnant were part of the slave. But this time only the red portion of the passage was suggested for reading, and only the red, bolded, underlined portion below was actually quoted in the paragraphs:
(1 Corinthians 12:14-13:3) 14 For, indeed, the body is made up not of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all. This next scripture, also used in the past to show that all the remnant were part of the "slave" class, was not quoted this time, although it says essentially the same thing:
(Ephesians 2:19-22) 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him you too are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit. It was not until a talk in October 2012 and a Watchtower dated July 15, 2013 that the Governing Body finally claimed to be the "faithful and discreet slave" and changed the doctrine in a way that removed the rest of the remnant from the slave class.

As you already mentioned, the "Kingdom Ministry" in September 2007 answered this question by saying: " 'the faithful and discreet slave' does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight."
I wonder how they could have known that for sure. Did they take a survey of 9,500 different persons? After all, in 2007 the "faithful and discreet slave" consisted of about 9,500 persons who all claimed to be part of that "faithful and discreet slave." And the Governing Body who also claimed to be part of that slave, claimed in 2007 that all the persons who were of the anointed remnant class were included in that slave class, not just the Governing Body. 
It was not until June 2009, that the Watchtower claimed that, even though all the anointed remnant were still part of that slave class, that only the Governing Body could represent them in "giving food at the proper time." To prove it, a scripture was quoted that had previously been used to prove exactly the opposite. The full context quoted should make it clear why this passage could be used to show that all the anointed remnant were part of the slave. But this time only the red portion of the passage was suggested for reading, and only the red, bolded, underlined portion below was actually quoted in the paragraphs:
(1 Corinthians 12:14-13:3) 14 For, indeed, the body is made up not of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all. This next scripture, also used in the past to show that all the remnant were part of the "slave" class, was not quoted this time, although it says essentially the same thing:
(Ephesians 2:19-22) 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him you too are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit. It was not until a talk in October 2012 and a Watchtower dated July 15, 2013 that the Governing Body finally claimed to be the "faithful and discreet slave" and changed the doctrine in a way that removed the rest of the remnant from the slave class.

As you already mentioned, the "Kingdom Ministry" in September 2007 answered this question by saying: " 'the faithful and discreet slave' does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight."
I wonder how they could have known that for sure. Did they take a survey of 9,500 different persons? After all, in 2007 the "faithful and discreet slave" consisted of about 9,500 persons who all claimed to be part of that "faithful and discreet slave." And the Governing Body who also claimed to be part of that slave, claimed in 2007 that all the persons who were of the anointed remnant class were included in that slave class, not just the Governing Body. 
It was not until June 2009, that the Watchtower claimed that, even though all the anointed remnant were still part of that slave class, that only the Governing Body could represent them in "giving food at the proper time." To prove it, a scripture was quoted that had previously been used to prove exactly the opposite. The full context quoted should make it clear why this passage could be used to show that all the anointed remnant were part of the slave. But this time only the red portion of the passage was suggested for reading, and only the red, bolded, underlined portion below was actually quoted in the paragraphs:
(1 Corinthians 12:14-13:3) 14 For, indeed, the body is made up not of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all. This next scripture, also used in the past to show that all the remnant were part of the "slave" class, was not quoted this time, although it says essentially the same thing:
(Ephesians 2:19-22) 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him you too are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit. It was not until a talk in October 2012 and a Watchtower dated July 15, 2013 that the Governing Body finally claimed to be the "faithful and discreet slave" and changed the doctrine in a way that removed the rest of the remnant from the slave class.

Legally, the WT has a basis to protect their literature from the few embittered ones who manipulate it to mislead others. But most anti-JW websites I see are pretty focused on referencing WT literature exactly as it is...they have no desire to twist it. They completely disagree with the core views of JWs, so cheap tactics like manipulation/photoshoppery aren't necessary. And to falsify content would discredit their own cause.
I'm not arguing against the validity of copyright law, but copyright doesn't come from the Bible. It's a man-made law. The Bible doesn't come with copyrights. It was offered free to all by God, and no one can say "I own this book so don't use it in a way I don't like."
The org has made 2 statements that when combined are concerning:
1. It is the exclusive source of true spiritual food. 
2. Its content is copyrighted.
If the org truly believes both of these things, then they must believe they legally own true Bible discussion and interpretation. But they're actually blending the Bible and man-made laws to achieve this control. It feels icky. And they also feel they can police organic discussions on the internet. I'm sorry, but I can't help but see that as a control grab.

I agree. I don't know why, but @scholar JW and even some of the accounts tied to @AllenSmith have brought up this old idea that the 1914 Gentile Times doctrine was also proved to be correct through Zionist activities. I know that some people still believe this, but clearly you and I do not, and the Watchtower publications have provided a lot of good scriptural information to explain why it's not about earthly Jerusalem.
I'm guessing that "scholar JW" and "Allen Smith" bring it up because they are aware that this was the meaning of "Gentile Times" prior to 1914, and they realize that in order to say that we predicted it in advance, that something should have happened to earthly Israel. After all, the only prediction about 1914 that we can still claim to have gotten right from "decades in advance" of 1914 is the prediction that the Gentile Times would end that year. All the predictions that 1914 would be the end, and not the beginning of the times of distress had to finally be thrown away. All we had to do, of course, is change the meaning of "Gentile Times" so we could claim that we at least got that part right. There is a level of hubris, presumptuousness, haughtiness, ego, and pride which has always been a part of Bible prophecy predictions. They fail 99% of the time, which then results in either humility or dishonesty. You can guess what most religious leaders choose.
Every honest person who has looked carefully at the evidence has admitted that there is no proof for 607. If you read the "Chronology" article in the Insight book more carefully, you will realize that even the WTS is admitting that they are basing their own belief about the secular date 607 on the same defective sources. It has nothing to do with a belief related to fleshly Israel in modern times.
Yes, Russell is being brought up again and again in the publications. A kind of resurgence especially since the 2014 centenary. I'm in favor of learning from the past so as not to repeat mistakes, to choose the good and discard the bad, and learn humility, and learn how Jehovah can accomplish his purposes through imperfect people, often in ways they don't even understand at the time. We can appreciate the blessings they enjoyed, especially as they overcame so many obstacles as a very small group which has now grown to millions. But I am not in favor of re-writing history and putting a false spin on it just so we can try to attach a measure of that success to ourselves. It's like a person who longs for the days of old, their "glory days" which is fine up to a point, but loses its good, encouraging effect when they start enhancing that history with "adjusted" stories that sound more impressive.
Revelation was written to be an encouragement in all time periods when Christians sigh and groan through the present system of things, filled with war, pestilence, famine and death, and still therefore eagerly call out "Come! Lord Jesus."
Christians were given a "taste" of the glory of Jesus' kingship during the activities and proofs of the first century, and that glimpse should be enough for us to realize that we don't need to know everything that is going on behind the scenes in order to "persevere" until Jesus is manifested again at the end, the parousia (sudden, highly visible royal visitation) the synteleia (final conclusion; end of all things), the manifestation, the revelation, the judgment. He appeared "once for all time" as King and Priest according to the manner of Melchizedek, King and Priest. Revelation provides a vision, based on the glimpses of the glory revealed in the first century, and reveals how much greater and more real that glory must be in the "behind-the-scenes" heavenly enactments of those events, both past, present and future. In this way, Revelation brings the promises even closer to us so we can keep it close in mind.
Revelation is a parallel, in vision form, to the same admonition to endure to the end that we get in many other passages of scripture which are not in vision form. For example:
(1 Timothy 6:11-16) 11 However, you, O man of God, flee from these things. But pursue righteousness, godly devotion, faith, love, endurance, and mildness. 12 Fight the fine fight of the faith; get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called and you offered the fine public declaration in front of many witnesses. 13 Before God, who preserves all things alive, and Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen. Note that the foundation here is that Jesus is already King of Kings [same point made in Revelation 1:5; 17:12], yet we continue to endure faithfully until a future manifestion or revelation of that same Kingship, when it can again be said that "Jehovah has become King!" based on the fulfilled promise of the Kingdom through Christ when he battles the nations, brings them to ruin [true End of Gentile Times], judging and rewarding the resurrected dead.
(Revelation 11:17, 18) . . .“We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” Revelation 12 is this same history of Jesus' appointment and divine protection in vision form, using Biblical imagery from the past. It provides assurance that the promises will come no matter what obstacles arise, even death. Here is the same promise in non-vision form:
(Romans 8:31-39) 31 What, then, are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who will be against us? 32 Since he did not even spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, will he not also, along with him, kindly give us all other things? 33 Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones? God is the One who declares them righteous. 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 Just as it is written: “For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we have been accounted as sheep for slaughtering.” 37 On the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious through the one who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers 39 nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. That "short period of time" might make sense to you as a period of 100 or 200 years, depending on how long the overlapping generation is defined. But there is nothing in scripture that says it is one "generation," or that it is less than 2,000 years or even less than 1 year. Perhaps it is the same time period that is also called "one hour" as the kingdoms being brought to ruin think that they must cooperate against the Lamb if they are to have any chance of survival:
(Revelation 17:12-14) 12 “The ten horns that you saw mean ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings for one hour with the wild beast. 13 These have one thought, so they give their power and authority to the wild beast. 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.”
I do not claim that this way of reading Revelation is the right way or true way, but it brings me comfort and encouragement, probably in a similar way to the way in which it brought comfort and encouragement to the first readers of Revelation in Ephesus, Pergamum, etc. I don't claim to know any more about the signs or the times and seasons than they did. If you find comfort in believing that Jesus took his full power and kingship in 1914, that's fine, too. Although I'm sure that, by comparison, you will be in even more awe of the power of that kingdom over the times of the gentile nations when that power is more fully manifested. And I'm sure you appreciate the glimpses of that power and glory that Jesus revealed in the past as recorded in scripture. So in this we are not so different, and I do not think there is any value in demeaning whatever meaning you currently give to this intermediate manifestation of that kingdom in 1914.
But with respect to honesty about the past, we do know that there is no evidence for the date 607. But, if one wishes, they can still find other reasons to look back at 1914. For many of us, I can tell it gives us a sense of superiority and self-righteousness that we, of all peoples, were able to predict 1914, decades in advance. But exactly what were we able to predict?
We were able to predict that it meant Armageddon would be completed in the surrounding months, that the great tribulation would be completed, and that it would usher in a time of peace before 1915. And, as the end of the times of power given to the nations (Gentile Times) it would also see the collapse into chaos of all nations and political institutions of all kinds except for the nation of Israel -- the Gentiles had had truly their day. It was "the end of the World" in that sense. So, in order to continue to be right and not admit a failure, we (WTS) loudly proclaimed that the "World had ended in 1914." That worked well through the war, but soon lost its value as 100% of the predictions for 1918 failed, too. We continued to say that Armageddon had actually started in 1914, because all we had to do was keep extending the meaning of Armageddon and weakening its Biblical meaning so that it was more related to the fight between "Labor and Capital." We also had a clever reason for continuing to say that the "great tribulation" had started in 1914, but that the break in the tribulation was the same one Jesus predicted saying that the days were cut short "on account of the chosen ones." This explanation was in effect when I was baptized, and didn't change until a few years later:
*** w99 5/1 p. 16 par. 11 “Let the Reader Use Discernment” ***
However, in later years we have come to see things differently. On Thursday, July 10, 1969, at the “Peace on Earth” International Assembly in New York City, F. W. Franz, then vice president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, gave an electrifying talk. In reviewing the previous understanding of Jesus’ prophecy, Brother Franz said: “The explanation was given that the ‘great tribulation’ had begun in 1914 C.E. and that it was not allowed to run its full course then but God stopped World War I in November of 1918. From then on God was allowing an interval for the activity of his anointed remnant of elect Christians before he let the final part of the ‘great tribulation’ resume at the battle of Armageddon.” Now, the only remaining portion of the prediction that we claim we got right was the prediction that the Gentile Times would end in 1914. We still claim that we were right about that, but had to change the definition of the term "Gentile Times" in order to keep claiming that we at least got that part right.
So, hopefully, you can see that I am only interested in the  repeated misuse of the doctrine by which we like to claim superiority because we wish to be "right at all costs." If it's at the cost of honesty and integrity, we should clean it up. I wonder how many people that we talk to in our ministry have been able to see through the false claims and hubris and this becomes the reason they give no further respect for the wonderful truths that we also could share with them.

I'm amazed (or am I? I shouldn't be really) that you still claim this, repeating the Proclaimers book's error. I've lost count how many times you've been corrected on this point over the past decade or so by several individuals. @JW Insider has just corrected you again! and yet you persist. 
I'll c&p a portion of my email to you from 2012:
Readers can see for themselves: https://www.scribd.com/document/299825677/The-Even-Tide-by-John-Aquila-Brown-1823
 

I am still of the opinion that this secular date of 607 doesn't matter that much. Millions of JWs believe it was when the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judea was desolated, and the year the last Davidic king was deposed. For many years now, I've known that there is overwhelming evidence against this date, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened 20 years after the date that our publications promote. Again, I don't think anyone should make a big deal about a date, and the date is "in the same ball-park," only a couple of decades off. That's less than 1% error for an event that happened about 2,624 years ago.
Millions of Witnesses who accept it do not have any reason to look into it to make sure about it. Why should they? Witnesses should have no reason to be skeptical of the publications, and the publications state very clearly that 607 is the secular date for this Biblical event, without question. I think that it is to be expected, therefore, that most of us will merely defend the date 607 because of the way it is presented in the publications. It appears to be what we should do. It is transparent on this forum that defending 607 has become another way of defending "slave" itself, which has become part of the belief and faith that we naturally defend from a scriptural point of view:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . . So all of us have that scriptural desire and reason to defend our beliefs, which is why I am sure that you and Arauna and others are presenting your views honestly, and with the right motive. My own reason for concern is not so much about the date itself, as explained above, but just an explanation of why I myself cannot honestly promote it. For me it's much more about honesty than the date itself. Looking very carefully and prayerfully at our own explanations in our publications I can see no Biblical reason to concern ourselves with either 607 or 587 or 539 or 537, whether the dates are correct or not. These dates are only as valuable to us as say 1513 B.C.E. or 740 B.C.E.
But I also believe I see evidence that the "slave" does not believe in 607, either. I believe the "slave" must feel trapped into this belief and have not yet found a clear way out. I base this opinion on the way in which the writers deal with evidence that reveals that the writers don't want the evidence questioned because they know what will be found. This shows a fear of the evidence. The very careful way in which they dealt with Furuli's evidence in October and November 2011 was very revealing. Even Insight shows that the writers knew more than they could say.
In fact, it is made to appear that this secular date has scholarly support. In many scholarly publications you will see a "c." for "circa" or "about" in front of a date, or else a range of dates is mentioned so that you can know that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Insight book does this too, in places -- but NEVER for 607. Here's an example:
*** it-1 p. 192 Ashkelon ***
In the prophecy of Amos (c. 804 B.C.E.) prediction was made of defeat for the ruler of Ashkelon. (Am 1:8) Secular history shows that in the succeeding century Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria made Asqaluna (Ashkelon) a vassal city. Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) uttered two prophecies involving Ashkelon. While Jeremiah 47:2-7 could have seen some fulfillment when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city early in his reign (c. 624 B.C.E.), the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:17-20, 28, 29 clearly indicates a fulfillment subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Zephaniah’s prophecy (written before 648 B.C.E.) also foretold a coming desolation for Ashkelon, along with other Philistine cities, after which the remnant of Judah would eventually occupy “the houses of Ashkelon.” (Zep 2:4-7) Finally, about 518 B.C.E., Zechariah proclaimed doom for Ashkelon . . .
In fact, the 607-date chronology is inserted into quotes and references from authorities as if it were referenced from there when it was not.
*** 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, . . . *** 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. 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. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power. . . . One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.). Grayson and Pritchard, although referenced as authorities, actually offer contrary evidence, showing that the event marked here for 624 was actually 604, 625 was actually 605, 617 was 597, and the event marked here for 588 is actually 568 -- therefore the date marked 607 would actually be 587.
So although the Jerusalem event marked 607 was actually 587/6, according to all the referenced authorities found in Insight (these and dozens of others, including those not referenced), the Insight book chooses to refer to 607 as if it has never been questioned. Insight mentions the date 607 authoritatively, about 150 times.
To keep 607 in the limelight and evidently to avoid questions about thinking about the Biblical definition of the 70 years, the Insight book not only says 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, but also claims it was his "1st year" by another reckoning. Compare these two claims from Insight:
*** it-1 pp. 1185-1186 Image ***
Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream . . . *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was both 625 and 607 according to the Insight book. Yet Grayson, Pritchard and a thousand other sources would agree that it was 605.
Also, to keep 607 in the limelight the events of 598 and 589 through 587 are sometimes tied to just 607 as the "pivotal" year. For example, note that this last siege lasted for a year and a half, and a siege prior to this was about 10 years earlier. 
*** it-2 p. 1065 Tammuz, II ***
It was on the ninth day of this fourth month (Tammuz) that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. after an 18-month siege. Insight often admits that the siege was dated 2 years earlier and 10/11 years earlier, but notice the shorthand sometimes preferred for referencing Jerusalem's siege:
*** it-1 p. 1242 Jackal ***
Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. brought the stress of famine, with the result that mothers treated their own offspring cruelly. Thus Jeremiah appropriately contrasted the cruelty “of my people” with the jackals’ maternal care.—La 4:3, 10. The point, of course, is that the one date most in question of all dates that the Society uses, is always presented as if it is the one date least in question. It is repeated 150 times in the Insight book alone. And dates that fall within the period, including 625, 624, 617, 609, 607, 539 and 537 (more likely, the actual dates 605, 604, 598, 589, 587, 539 and 538) -- these dates make up the majority, by far, of all the dates ever mentioned in the entire Insight book, including all mentions of 29 C.E. and 33 C.E. put together.
Compare the case of 607 carefully with how we deal with evidence or "no evidence" in other doctrinal matters. I thought it was very revealing. In matters like "stauros" and several others, for example, the publications don't show the same fear and avoidance of the evidence.

I agree. I don't know why, but @scholar JW and even some of the accounts tied to @AllenSmith have brought up this old idea that the 1914 Gentile Times doctrine was also proved to be correct through Zionist activities. I know that some people still believe this, but clearly you and I do not, and the Watchtower publications have provided a lot of good scriptural information to explain why it's not about earthly Jerusalem.
I'm guessing that "scholar JW" and "Allen Smith" bring it up because they are aware that this was the meaning of "Gentile Times" prior to 1914, and they realize that in order to say that we predicted it in advance, that something should have happened to earthly Israel. After all, the only prediction about 1914 that we can still claim to have gotten right from "decades in advance" of 1914 is the prediction that the Gentile Times would end that year. All the predictions that 1914 would be the end, and not the beginning of the times of distress had to finally be thrown away. All we had to do, of course, is change the meaning of "Gentile Times" so we could claim that we at least got that part right. There is a level of hubris, presumptuousness, haughtiness, ego, and pride which has always been a part of Bible prophecy predictions. They fail 99% of the time, which then results in either humility or dishonesty. You can guess what most religious leaders choose.
Every honest person who has looked carefully at the evidence has admitted that there is no proof for 607. If you read the "Chronology" article in the Insight book more carefully, you will realize that even the WTS is admitting that they are basing their own belief about the secular date 607 on the same defective sources. It has nothing to do with a belief related to fleshly Israel in modern times.
Yes, Russell is being brought up again and again in the publications. A kind of resurgence especially since the 2014 centenary. I'm in favor of learning from the past so as not to repeat mistakes, to choose the good and discard the bad, and learn humility, and learn how Jehovah can accomplish his purposes through imperfect people, often in ways they don't even understand at the time. We can appreciate the blessings they enjoyed, especially as they overcame so many obstacles as a very small group which has now grown to millions. But I am not in favor of re-writing history and putting a false spin on it just so we can try to attach a measure of that success to ourselves. It's like a person who longs for the days of old, their "glory days" which is fine up to a point, but loses its good, encouraging effect when they start enhancing that history with "adjusted" stories that sound more impressive.
Revelation was written to be an encouragement in all time periods when Christians sigh and groan through the present system of things, filled with war, pestilence, famine and death, and still therefore eagerly call out "Come! Lord Jesus."
Christians were given a "taste" of the glory of Jesus' kingship during the activities and proofs of the first century, and that glimpse should be enough for us to realize that we don't need to know everything that is going on behind the scenes in order to "persevere" until Jesus is manifested again at the end, the parousia (sudden, highly visible royal visitation) the synteleia (final conclusion; end of all things), the manifestation, the revelation, the judgment. He appeared "once for all time" as King and Priest according to the manner of Melchizedek, King and Priest. Revelation provides a vision, based on the glimpses of the glory revealed in the first century, and reveals how much greater and more real that glory must be in the "behind-the-scenes" heavenly enactments of those events, both past, present and future. In this way, Revelation brings the promises even closer to us so we can keep it close in mind.
Revelation is a parallel, in vision form, to the same admonition to endure to the end that we get in many other passages of scripture which are not in vision form. For example:
(1 Timothy 6:11-16) 11 However, you, O man of God, flee from these things. But pursue righteousness, godly devotion, faith, love, endurance, and mildness. 12 Fight the fine fight of the faith; get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called and you offered the fine public declaration in front of many witnesses. 13 Before God, who preserves all things alive, and Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen. Note that the foundation here is that Jesus is already King of Kings [same point made in Revelation 1:5; 17:12], yet we continue to endure faithfully until a future manifestion or revelation of that same Kingship, when it can again be said that "Jehovah has become King!" based on the fulfilled promise of the Kingdom through Christ when he battles the nations, brings them to ruin [true End of Gentile Times], judging and rewarding the resurrected dead.
(Revelation 11:17, 18) . . .“We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” Revelation 12 is this same history of Jesus' appointment and divine protection in vision form, using Biblical imagery from the past. It provides assurance that the promises will come no matter what obstacles arise, even death. Here is the same promise in non-vision form:
(Romans 8:31-39) 31 What, then, are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who will be against us? 32 Since he did not even spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, will he not also, along with him, kindly give us all other things? 33 Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones? God is the One who declares them righteous. 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 Just as it is written: “For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we have been accounted as sheep for slaughtering.” 37 On the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious through the one who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers 39 nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. That "short period of time" might make sense to you as a period of 100 or 200 years, depending on how long the overlapping generation is defined. But there is nothing in scripture that says it is one "generation," or that it is less than 2,000 years or even less than 1 year. Perhaps it is the same time period that is also called "one hour" as the kingdoms being brought to ruin think that they must cooperate against the Lamb if they are to have any chance of survival:
(Revelation 17:12-14) 12 “The ten horns that you saw mean ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings for one hour with the wild beast. 13 These have one thought, so they give their power and authority to the wild beast. 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.”
I do not claim that this way of reading Revelation is the right way or true way, but it brings me comfort and encouragement, probably in a similar way to the way in which it brought comfort and encouragement to the first readers of Revelation in Ephesus, Pergamum, etc. I don't claim to know any more about the signs or the times and seasons than they did. If you find comfort in believing that Jesus took his full power and kingship in 1914, that's fine, too. Although I'm sure that, by comparison, you will be in even more awe of the power of that kingdom over the times of the gentile nations when that power is more fully manifested. And I'm sure you appreciate the glimpses of that power and glory that Jesus revealed in the past as recorded in scripture. So in this we are not so different, and I do not think there is any value in demeaning whatever meaning you currently give to this intermediate manifestation of that kingdom in 1914.
But with respect to honesty about the past, we do know that there is no evidence for the date 607. But, if one wishes, they can still find other reasons to look back at 1914. For many of us, I can tell it gives us a sense of superiority and self-righteousness that we, of all peoples, were able to predict 1914, decades in advance. But exactly what were we able to predict?
We were able to predict that it meant Armageddon would be completed in the surrounding months, that the great tribulation would be completed, and that it would usher in a time of peace before 1915. And, as the end of the times of power given to the nations (Gentile Times) it would also see the collapse into chaos of all nations and political institutions of all kinds except for the nation of Israel -- the Gentiles had had truly their day. It was "the end of the World" in that sense. So, in order to continue to be right and not admit a failure, we (WTS) loudly proclaimed that the "World had ended in 1914." That worked well through the war, but soon lost its value as 100% of the predictions for 1918 failed, too. We continued to say that Armageddon had actually started in 1914, because all we had to do was keep extending the meaning of Armageddon and weakening its Biblical meaning so that it was more related to the fight between "Labor and Capital." We also had a clever reason for continuing to say that the "great tribulation" had started in 1914, but that the break in the tribulation was the same one Jesus predicted saying that the days were cut short "on account of the chosen ones." This explanation was in effect when I was baptized, and didn't change until a few years later:
*** w99 5/1 p. 16 par. 11 “Let the Reader Use Discernment” ***
However, in later years we have come to see things differently. On Thursday, July 10, 1969, at the “Peace on Earth” International Assembly in New York City, F. W. Franz, then vice president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, gave an electrifying talk. In reviewing the previous understanding of Jesus’ prophecy, Brother Franz said: “The explanation was given that the ‘great tribulation’ had begun in 1914 C.E. and that it was not allowed to run its full course then but God stopped World War I in November of 1918. From then on God was allowing an interval for the activity of his anointed remnant of elect Christians before he let the final part of the ‘great tribulation’ resume at the battle of Armageddon.” Now, the only remaining portion of the prediction that we claim we got right was the prediction that the Gentile Times would end in 1914. We still claim that we were right about that, but had to change the definition of the term "Gentile Times" in order to keep claiming that we at least got that part right.
So, hopefully, you can see that I am only interested in the  repeated misuse of the doctrine by which we like to claim superiority because we wish to be "right at all costs." If it's at the cost of honesty and integrity, we should clean it up. I wonder how many people that we talk to in our ministry have been able to see through the false claims and hubris and this becomes the reason they give no further respect for the wonderful truths that we also could share with them.

It's fine to believe this, but it's false to claim that the evidence supports it. We have already gone through dozens of examples showing that the Watchtower's chronology is inconsistent. Of course, even more inconsistency is introduced through mixing up the Gentile Times into this. You may have missed previous discussions on that particular topic.
The Bible chronology fits the archaeological evidence from NB chronology. There is no evidence for 607. To get anywhere near 607 you have to accept 539, which you have no right to do if you are going to reject 539 by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 607. If you are honest, you are forced to reject 539 if you accept 607. You can't cherry pick a range of dates that are interwoven and interlocked through tens of thousands of tablets and at least 10 other completely independent lines of evidence. You can claim whatever you want, but you'd have to show evidence if you are honest.
Your chronology is not at all anchored to 539. By choosing 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year you have rejected 539. Claiming you still want it after you reject it is dishonest. This is probably a difficult concept for anyone who has not really studied the data, and I suspect now, for many reasons, that you have never studied the data. This would explain why you have failed to present or counter any evidence and have merely repeated the mistaken logic and declared it "wondrous."
Your repetition of this particular point tells me again that you have not paid attention even to the Watchtower's explanation or have decided to use the fact that the Bible gives two different counting methods as an opportunity to try to bluster those who will not look into it for themselves. Bluster in this case would be dishonest, but you have failed to give any evidence that you mean to do anything else.
That's fine. But it's meaningless with respect to the Watchtower's misuse of the NB period which is unintelligible and unworkable.
The date 607 is not well-established until at least a tiny piece of evidence can be shown. You have failed to show evidence, but you apparently wish to continue blustering that it is "wondrous" and "well-established." Although you might have a doctrine that makes the same mistakes of prominent German theologians, it is still out of harmony with the words of Jesus. Jesus said that the parousia would come as a surprise and that the times and seasons were only in the Father's jurisdiction. Besides it is even out of harmony with the German theologians in that the Watchtower tied the predictions for 1914 with the reinstatement of the Israelite nation and the demise of all other nations and institutions in 1914. The failure of Israel to dominate in 1914 showed that the Gentile Times prediction failed. John Aquila Brown did not tie the Gentile Times to the 2,520 years having noticed that Revelation only ties the number 1,260 to Jesus words about the Gentile Times. The Bible never mentions "SEVEN Gentile Times." (The closest is Revelation's mention of THREE AND ONE-HALF Gentile Times.)
The capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 is a direct admission of the failure of the Gentile Times doctrine. If the Gentile Times had truly ended in 1914, there would be no Gentile forces to capture Jerusalem after 1914. Russell's fixation on the topic of the Jews repatriation to Palestine (Zionism) made him (in)famous, but all those predictions failed, and Rutherford finally dropped them all after 1926.
His study doesn't support our theory at all. Also, Jesus made it clear that the Gentile Times had not started before his own day which would be necessary for the Watchtower's theory to work. More importantly, the Bible undermines the Watchtower's theory. 607 is pseudo-archaeology, but it fails on every other point, too.
Jesus said that this kind of prophecy would be wrong, so I assume that if it builds faith, it must be the wrong kind of faith. Faith in a date, perhaps. Paul said we need nothing to be written to us about dates because the parousia comes as a surprise, like a thief in the night. And the worst part has been all the dead ends that have resulted from our chronological speculations over the years. So far, all the schemes have failed. It's surely better to listen to words of Jesus. He said that if someone claims to be able to show that the end is near, not to go after him. He said that no one would know the day or the hour. He said the parousia will be as sudden as visible as lightning. Surely, we have so many more valuable doctrines to focus on rather than disrespectfully toying with these words of Jesus.
(2 Peter 3:8-15) 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 Yet Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, . . . 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence [PAROUSIA] of the day of Jehovah, t. . . .14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU,

Yes, a lot of Witnesses are quick to deny this because they don't realize that the Watchtower has promoted two different regnal periods for Nebuchadnezzar. And it's completely unnecessary if you are willing to accept the Bible's timeline. The Bible's timeline is corroborated by archaeological evidence, too. But the Bible's timeline is not that helpful for pushing 1914, so it's adjusted here to put more emphasis on 607.
And it wasn't just done for Nebuchadnezzar. A lot of Witnesses are probably not aware that the timeline has been tampered with so that Jehoiakim has "yet another different regnal period" too.
Your quote from page 463 is actually one I was about to include because it very clearly shows some of the points I was making. Thanks. If the 11th year of Zedekiah marked a regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar that started in 607, then this really is "yet another different regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar" that started in 625. Don't you agree? The Insight book is numbering Nebuchadnezzar's reign from two different accession years: 625 and 607. Neither is correct, of course, from the perspective of the Biblical and historical evidence. The point is clearly to avoid the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was taking exiles from this early in his reign, which would lend support to the idea in Jeremiah (and Daniel) that the 70 years for Babylon in Jeremiah referred to the period of Babylon's greatest domination. Of course, Daniel also agrees with the Babylonian archaeological records here, too, which state that Babylon was taking things from Judea from the very earliest years of his reign, or even before, during his father's reign.
And, as I said, the Watchtower chronology also prefers to give Jehoiakim "yet another different regnal period" because this one also fits the Biblical and secular chronology, but does not fit the Watchtower "chronology" as well. (Here again, the Bible also fits the archaeological evidence in both cases, but this is not as important, evidently, as force-fitting 1914.) Compare these two references from "Insight."
*** it-1 p. 576 Daniel ***
This was in Jehoiakim’s third year (as tributary king to Babylon), which third year started in the spring of 618 B.C.E. (Da 1:1) *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) Counting from his first year as his accession year, Jehoiakim's third year would have been about 625 B.C.E, not 618 (both Watchtower dates) based on the date range below, where his accession year would be 628, first year 627, second year 626 and third year 625. 625 is of course Watchtower-speak for 605 the same year that Babylon beat both Assyria and Egypt making a last stand together at the battle of Carchemish.
** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Jehoiakim’s bad rule of about 11 years (628-618 B.C.E.) The reason the Watchtower doesn't like the Bible's account here is because it would have Nebuchadnezzar beginning his devastations and depredations in Judea even earlier than 625, which would mean that the 70 years that Jeremiah speaks of for Babylon's domination would clearly be closer to 90 instead of 70 years.
But both Babylonian records and the Bible shows that the devastation began even earlier, from very near the very beginning of the 70 years that the nations would begin serving Babylon. Note:
(2 Kings 23:36-24:1) 36 Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. . . . In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years.. . . Biblical and secular chronology would put the start of Jehoiakim's reign in about 608 B.C.E, which would be the earliest that Judea under Jehoiakim could have suffered depredations under Nebuchadnezzar. [And no later than 600 to account for 3 years of servitude.] (That's 608+20=628 in Watchtower chronology.)
In fact it was "early in Jehoiakim's reign" that Jeremiah already had an eye on Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem:
*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Early in Jehoiakim’s reign Jeremiah warned that unless the people repented, Jerusalem and her temple would be destroyed. In fact the incursions by Egypt, Assyria and Babylon could have been nearly simultaneous for a time around 609 up through about 605 as the third year of Jehoiakim would have included the battle of Carchemish, won by Babylon, after a few years of battles in 609 when Egypt's Necho killed Judah's King Josiah, and Babylon overtook Assyria's Harran. Carchemish would would have then been in the third official year of Jehoiakim's reign. The situation fits 2 Kings 24:1-7:
(2 Kings 24:1, 2, 7) . . .In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites.. . . Never again did the king of Egypt venture out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt, from the Wadi of Egypt up to the Eu·phraʹtes River. In those years from 609 through 605, Egypt and Assyria are finally boxed in and Babylon is the primary, ascendant power, having toppled Assyria as the power to fear back in 609, and having been the strongest power for Judea to fear since that date.
And, as mentioned, even though the Watchtower publications cannot accept it, we have the Biblical statement in Daniel which is corroborated in the Babylonian Chronicles:
(Daniel 1:1-4) 1 In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, along with some of the utensils of the house of the true God, and he brought them to the land of Shiʹnar to the house of his god. He placed the utensils in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. 4 They were to be youths without any defect, of good appearance, endowed with wisdom, knowledge, and discernment, and capable of serving in the king’s palace.. . Notice that this is a perfect fit for 605 B.C.E. (625 Watchtower date), even though the Watchtower dating scheme does not like the term "third year of Jehoiakim" here. So it has to be reinterpreted in the Watchtower as closer to the end, not the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign.
A portion of the archaeological evidence is mentioned in Insight, where Hattu clearly includes Judea, and 625 is "Watchtower-speak" for 605, and 624 is 604:
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1)  
 

It's fine to believe this, but it's false to claim that the evidence supports it. We have already gone through dozens of examples showing that the Watchtower's chronology is inconsistent. Of course, even more inconsistency is introduced through mixing up the Gentile Times into this. You may have missed previous discussions on that particular topic.
The Bible chronology fits the archaeological evidence from NB chronology. There is no evidence for 607. To get anywhere near 607 you have to accept 539, which you have no right to do if you are going to reject 539 by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 607. If you are honest, you are forced to reject 539 if you accept 607. You can't cherry pick a range of dates that are interwoven and interlocked through tens of thousands of tablets and at least 10 other completely independent lines of evidence. You can claim whatever you want, but you'd have to show evidence if you are honest.
Your chronology is not at all anchored to 539. By choosing 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year you have rejected 539. Claiming you still want it after you reject it is dishonest. This is probably a difficult concept for anyone who has not really studied the data, and I suspect now, for many reasons, that you have never studied the data. This would explain why you have failed to present or counter any evidence and have merely repeated the mistaken logic and declared it "wondrous."
Your repetition of this particular point tells me again that you have not paid attention even to the Watchtower's explanation or have decided to use the fact that the Bible gives two different counting methods as an opportunity to try to bluster those who will not look into it for themselves. Bluster in this case would be dishonest, but you have failed to give any evidence that you mean to do anything else.
That's fine. But it's meaningless with respect to the Watchtower's misuse of the NB period which is unintelligible and unworkable.
The date 607 is not well-established until at least a tiny piece of evidence can be shown. You have failed to show evidence, but you apparently wish to continue blustering that it is "wondrous" and "well-established." Although you might have a doctrine that makes the same mistakes of prominent German theologians, it is still out of harmony with the words of Jesus. Jesus said that the parousia would come as a surprise and that the times and seasons were only in the Father's jurisdiction. Besides it is even out of harmony with the German theologians in that the Watchtower tied the predictions for 1914 with the reinstatement of the Israelite nation and the demise of all other nations and institutions in 1914. The failure of Israel to dominate in 1914 showed that the Gentile Times prediction failed. John Aquila Brown did not tie the Gentile Times to the 2,520 years having noticed that Revelation only ties the number 1,260 to Jesus words about the Gentile Times. The Bible never mentions "SEVEN Gentile Times." (The closest is Revelation's mention of THREE AND ONE-HALF Gentile Times.)
The capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 is a direct admission of the failure of the Gentile Times doctrine. If the Gentile Times had truly ended in 1914, there would be no Gentile forces to capture Jerusalem after 1914. Russell's fixation on the topic of the Jews repatriation to Palestine (Zionism) made him (in)famous, but all those predictions failed, and Rutherford finally dropped them all after 1926.
His study doesn't support our theory at all. Also, Jesus made it clear that the Gentile Times had not started before his own day which would be necessary for the Watchtower's theory to work. More importantly, the Bible undermines the Watchtower's theory. 607 is pseudo-archaeology, but it fails on every other point, too.
Jesus said that this kind of prophecy would be wrong, so I assume that if it builds faith, it must be the wrong kind of faith. Faith in a date, perhaps. Paul said we need nothing to be written to us about dates because the parousia comes as a surprise, like a thief in the night. And the worst part has been all the dead ends that have resulted from our chronological speculations over the years. So far, all the schemes have failed. It's surely better to listen to words of Jesus. He said that if someone claims to be able to show that the end is near, not to go after him. He said that no one would know the day or the hour. He said the parousia will be as sudden as visible as lightning. Surely, we have so many more valuable doctrines to focus on rather than disrespectfully toying with these words of Jesus.
(2 Peter 3:8-15) 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 Yet Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, . . . 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence [PAROUSIA] of the day of Jehovah, t. . . .14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU,

Yes, a lot of Witnesses are quick to deny this because they don't realize that the Watchtower has promoted two different regnal periods for Nebuchadnezzar. And it's completely unnecessary if you are willing to accept the Bible's timeline. The Bible's timeline is corroborated by archaeological evidence, too. But the Bible's timeline is not that helpful for pushing 1914, so it's adjusted here to put more emphasis on 607.
And it wasn't just done for Nebuchadnezzar. A lot of Witnesses are probably not aware that the timeline has been tampered with so that Jehoiakim has "yet another different regnal period" too.
Your quote from page 463 is actually one I was about to include because it very clearly shows some of the points I was making. Thanks. If the 11th year of Zedekiah marked a regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar that started in 607, then this really is "yet another different regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar" that started in 625. Don't you agree? The Insight book is numbering Nebuchadnezzar's reign from two different accession years: 625 and 607. Neither is correct, of course, from the perspective of the Biblical and historical evidence. The point is clearly to avoid the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was taking exiles from this early in his reign, which would lend support to the idea in Jeremiah (and Daniel) that the 70 years for Babylon in Jeremiah referred to the period of Babylon's greatest domination. Of course, Daniel also agrees with the Babylonian archaeological records here, too, which state that Babylon was taking things from Judea from the very earliest years of his reign, or even before, during his father's reign.
And, as I said, the Watchtower chronology also prefers to give Jehoiakim "yet another different regnal period" because this one also fits the Biblical and secular chronology, but does not fit the Watchtower "chronology" as well. (Here again, the Bible also fits the archaeological evidence in both cases, but this is not as important, evidently, as force-fitting 1914.) Compare these two references from "Insight."
*** it-1 p. 576 Daniel ***
This was in Jehoiakim’s third year (as tributary king to Babylon), which third year started in the spring of 618 B.C.E. (Da 1:1) *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) Counting from his first year as his accession year, Jehoiakim's third year would have been about 625 B.C.E, not 618 (both Watchtower dates) based on the date range below, where his accession year would be 628, first year 627, second year 626 and third year 625. 625 is of course Watchtower-speak for 605 the same year that Babylon beat both Assyria and Egypt making a last stand together at the battle of Carchemish.
** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Jehoiakim’s bad rule of about 11 years (628-618 B.C.E.) The reason the Watchtower doesn't like the Bible's account here is because it would have Nebuchadnezzar beginning his devastations and depredations in Judea even earlier than 625, which would mean that the 70 years that Jeremiah speaks of for Babylon's domination would clearly be closer to 90 instead of 70 years.
But both Babylonian records and the Bible shows that the devastation began even earlier, from very near the very beginning of the 70 years that the nations would begin serving Babylon. Note:
(2 Kings 23:36-24:1) 36 Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. . . . In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years.. . . Biblical and secular chronology would put the start of Jehoiakim's reign in about 608 B.C.E, which would be the earliest that Judea under Jehoiakim could have suffered depredations under Nebuchadnezzar. [And no later than 600 to account for 3 years of servitude.] (That's 608+20=628 in Watchtower chronology.)
In fact it was "early in Jehoiakim's reign" that Jeremiah already had an eye on Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem:
*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Early in Jehoiakim’s reign Jeremiah warned that unless the people repented, Jerusalem and her temple would be destroyed. In fact the incursions by Egypt, Assyria and Babylon could have been nearly simultaneous for a time around 609 up through about 605 as the third year of Jehoiakim would have included the battle of Carchemish, won by Babylon, after a few years of battles in 609 when Egypt's Necho killed Judah's King Josiah, and Babylon overtook Assyria's Harran. Carchemish would would have then been in the third official year of Jehoiakim's reign. The situation fits 2 Kings 24:1-7:
(2 Kings 24:1, 2, 7) . . .In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites.. . . Never again did the king of Egypt venture out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt, from the Wadi of Egypt up to the Eu·phraʹtes River. In those years from 609 through 605, Egypt and Assyria are finally boxed in and Babylon is the primary, ascendant power, having toppled Assyria as the power to fear back in 609, and having been the strongest power for Judea to fear since that date.
And, as mentioned, even though the Watchtower publications cannot accept it, we have the Biblical statement in Daniel which is corroborated in the Babylonian Chronicles:
(Daniel 1:1-4) 1 In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, along with some of the utensils of the house of the true God, and he brought them to the land of Shiʹnar to the house of his god. He placed the utensils in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. 4 They were to be youths without any defect, of good appearance, endowed with wisdom, knowledge, and discernment, and capable of serving in the king’s palace.. . Notice that this is a perfect fit for 605 B.C.E. (625 Watchtower date), even though the Watchtower dating scheme does not like the term "third year of Jehoiakim" here. So it has to be reinterpreted in the Watchtower as closer to the end, not the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign.
A portion of the archaeological evidence is mentioned in Insight, where Hattu clearly includes Judea, and 625 is "Watchtower-speak" for 605, and 624 is 604:
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1)  
 

I am still of the opinion that this secular date of 607 doesn't matter that much. Millions of JWs believe it was when the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judea was desolated, and the year the last Davidic king was deposed. For many years now, I've known that there is overwhelming evidence against this date, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened 20 years after the date that our publications promote. Again, I don't think anyone should make a big deal about a date, and the date is "in the same ball-park," only a couple of decades off. That's less than 1% error for an event that happened about 2,624 years ago.
Millions of Witnesses who accept it do not have any reason to look into it to make sure about it. Why should they? Witnesses should have no reason to be skeptical of the publications, and the publications state very clearly that 607 is the secular date for this Biblical event, without question. I think that it is to be expected, therefore, that most of us will merely defend the date 607 because of the way it is presented in the publications. It appears to be what we should do. It is transparent on this forum that defending 607 has become another way of defending "slave" itself, which has become part of the belief and faith that we naturally defend from a scriptural point of view:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . . So all of us have that scriptural desire and reason to defend our beliefs, which is why I am sure that you and Arauna and others are presenting your views honestly, and with the right motive. My own reason for concern is not so much about the date itself, as explained above, but just an explanation of why I myself cannot honestly promote it. For me it's much more about honesty than the date itself. Looking very carefully and prayerfully at our own explanations in our publications I can see no Biblical reason to concern ourselves with either 607 or 587 or 539 or 537, whether the dates are correct or not. These dates are only as valuable to us as say 1513 B.C.E. or 740 B.C.E.
But I also believe I see evidence that the "slave" does not believe in 607, either. I believe the "slave" must feel trapped into this belief and have not yet found a clear way out. I base this opinion on the way in which the writers deal with evidence that reveals that the writers don't want the evidence questioned because they know what will be found. This shows a fear of the evidence. The very careful way in which they dealt with Furuli's evidence in October and November 2011 was very revealing. Even Insight shows that the writers knew more than they could say.
In fact, it is made to appear that this secular date has scholarly support. In many scholarly publications you will see a "c." for "circa" or "about" in front of a date, or else a range of dates is mentioned so that you can know that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Insight book does this too, in places -- but NEVER for 607. Here's an example:
*** it-1 p. 192 Ashkelon ***
In the prophecy of Amos (c. 804 B.C.E.) prediction was made of defeat for the ruler of Ashkelon. (Am 1:8) Secular history shows that in the succeeding century Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria made Asqaluna (Ashkelon) a vassal city. Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) uttered two prophecies involving Ashkelon. While Jeremiah 47:2-7 could have seen some fulfillment when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city early in his reign (c. 624 B.C.E.), the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:17-20, 28, 29 clearly indicates a fulfillment subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Zephaniah’s prophecy (written before 648 B.C.E.) also foretold a coming desolation for Ashkelon, along with other Philistine cities, after which the remnant of Judah would eventually occupy “the houses of Ashkelon.” (Zep 2:4-7) Finally, about 518 B.C.E., Zechariah proclaimed doom for Ashkelon . . .
In fact, the 607-date chronology is inserted into quotes and references from authorities as if it were referenced from there when it was not.
*** 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, . . . *** 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. 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. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power. . . . One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.). Grayson and Pritchard, although referenced as authorities, actually offer contrary evidence, showing that the event marked here for 624 was actually 604, 625 was actually 605, 617 was 597, and the event marked here for 588 is actually 568 -- therefore the date marked 607 would actually be 587.
So although the Jerusalem event marked 607 was actually 587/6, according to all the referenced authorities found in Insight (these and dozens of others, including those not referenced), the Insight book chooses to refer to 607 as if it has never been questioned. Insight mentions the date 607 authoritatively, about 150 times.
To keep 607 in the limelight and evidently to avoid questions about thinking about the Biblical definition of the 70 years, the Insight book not only says 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, but also claims it was his "1st year" by another reckoning. Compare these two claims from Insight:
*** it-1 pp. 1185-1186 Image ***
Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream . . . *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was both 625 and 607 according to the Insight book. Yet Grayson, Pritchard and a thousand other sources would agree that it was 605.
Also, to keep 607 in the limelight the events of 598 and 589 through 587 are sometimes tied to just 607 as the "pivotal" year. For example, note that this last siege lasted for a year and a half, and a siege prior to this was about 10 years earlier. 
*** it-2 p. 1065 Tammuz, II ***
It was on the ninth day of this fourth month (Tammuz) that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. after an 18-month siege. Insight often admits that the siege was dated 2 years earlier and 10/11 years earlier, but notice the shorthand sometimes preferred for referencing Jerusalem's siege:
*** it-1 p. 1242 Jackal ***
Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. brought the stress of famine, with the result that mothers treated their own offspring cruelly. Thus Jeremiah appropriately contrasted the cruelty “of my people” with the jackals’ maternal care.—La 4:3, 10. The point, of course, is that the one date most in question of all dates that the Society uses, is always presented as if it is the one date least in question. It is repeated 150 times in the Insight book alone. And dates that fall within the period, including 625, 624, 617, 609, 607, 539 and 537 (more likely, the actual dates 605, 604, 598, 589, 587, 539 and 538) -- these dates make up the majority, by far, of all the dates ever mentioned in the entire Insight book, including all mentions of 29 C.E. and 33 C.E. put together.
Compare the case of 607 carefully with how we deal with evidence or "no evidence" in other doctrinal matters. I thought it was very revealing. In matters like "stauros" and several others, for example, the publications don't show the same fear and avoidance of the evidence.

Yep. Looks like it got run over with a tank and had acid poured on it.

Yep. Looks like it got run over with a tank and had acid poured on it.

I am still of the opinion that this secular date of 607 doesn't matter that much. Millions of JWs believe it was when the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judea was desolated, and the year the last Davidic king was deposed. For many years now, I've known that there is overwhelming evidence against this date, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened 20 years after the date that our publications promote. Again, I don't think anyone should make a big deal about a date, and the date is "in the same ball-park," only a couple of decades off. That's less than 1% error for an event that happened about 2,624 years ago.
Millions of Witnesses who accept it do not have any reason to look into it to make sure about it. Why should they? Witnesses should have no reason to be skeptical of the publications, and the publications state very clearly that 607 is the secular date for this Biblical event, without question. I think that it is to be expected, therefore, that most of us will merely defend the date 607 because of the way it is presented in the publications. It appears to be what we should do. It is transparent on this forum that defending 607 has become another way of defending "slave" itself, which has become part of the belief and faith that we naturally defend from a scriptural point of view:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . . So all of us have that scriptural desire and reason to defend our beliefs, which is why I am sure that you and Arauna and others are presenting your views honestly, and with the right motive. My own reason for concern is not so much about the date itself, as explained above, but just an explanation of why I myself cannot honestly promote it. For me it's much more about honesty than the date itself. Looking very carefully and prayerfully at our own explanations in our publications I can see no Biblical reason to concern ourselves with either 607 or 587 or 539 or 537, whether the dates are correct or not. These dates are only as valuable to us as say 1513 B.C.E. or 740 B.C.E.
But I also believe I see evidence that the "slave" does not believe in 607, either. I believe the "slave" must feel trapped into this belief and have not yet found a clear way out. I base this opinion on the way in which the writers deal with evidence that reveals that the writers don't want the evidence questioned because they know what will be found. This shows a fear of the evidence. The very careful way in which they dealt with Furuli's evidence in October and November 2011 was very revealing. Even Insight shows that the writers knew more than they could say.
In fact, it is made to appear that this secular date has scholarly support. In many scholarly publications you will see a "c." for "circa" or "about" in front of a date, or else a range of dates is mentioned so that you can know that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Insight book does this too, in places -- but NEVER for 607. Here's an example:
*** it-1 p. 192 Ashkelon ***
In the prophecy of Amos (c. 804 B.C.E.) prediction was made of defeat for the ruler of Ashkelon. (Am 1:8) Secular history shows that in the succeeding century Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria made Asqaluna (Ashkelon) a vassal city. Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) uttered two prophecies involving Ashkelon. While Jeremiah 47:2-7 could have seen some fulfillment when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city early in his reign (c. 624 B.C.E.), the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:17-20, 28, 29 clearly indicates a fulfillment subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Zephaniah’s prophecy (written before 648 B.C.E.) also foretold a coming desolation for Ashkelon, along with other Philistine cities, after which the remnant of Judah would eventually occupy “the houses of Ashkelon.” (Zep 2:4-7) Finally, about 518 B.C.E., Zechariah proclaimed doom for Ashkelon . . .
In fact, the 607-date chronology is inserted into quotes and references from authorities as if it were referenced from there when it was not.
*** 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, . . . *** 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. 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. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power. . . . One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.). Grayson and Pritchard, although referenced as authorities, actually offer contrary evidence, showing that the event marked here for 624 was actually 604, 625 was actually 605, 617 was 597, and the event marked here for 588 is actually 568 -- therefore the date marked 607 would actually be 587.
So although the Jerusalem event marked 607 was actually 587/6, according to all the referenced authorities found in Insight (these and dozens of others, including those not referenced), the Insight book chooses to refer to 607 as if it has never been questioned. Insight mentions the date 607 authoritatively, about 150 times.
To keep 607 in the limelight and evidently to avoid questions about thinking about the Biblical definition of the 70 years, the Insight book not only says 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, but also claims it was his "1st year" by another reckoning. Compare these two claims from Insight:
*** it-1 pp. 1185-1186 Image ***
Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream . . . *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was both 625 and 607 according to the Insight book. Yet Grayson, Pritchard and a thousand other sources would agree that it was 605.
Also, to keep 607 in the limelight the events of 598 and 589 through 587 are sometimes tied to just 607 as the "pivotal" year. For example, note that this last siege lasted for a year and a half, and a siege prior to this was about 10 years earlier. 
*** it-2 p. 1065 Tammuz, II ***
It was on the ninth day of this fourth month (Tammuz) that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. after an 18-month siege. Insight often admits that the siege was dated 2 years earlier and 10/11 years earlier, but notice the shorthand sometimes preferred for referencing Jerusalem's siege:
*** it-1 p. 1242 Jackal ***
Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. brought the stress of famine, with the result that mothers treated their own offspring cruelly. Thus Jeremiah appropriately contrasted the cruelty “of my people” with the jackals’ maternal care.—La 4:3, 10. The point, of course, is that the one date most in question of all dates that the Society uses, is always presented as if it is the one date least in question. It is repeated 150 times in the Insight book alone. And dates that fall within the period, including 625, 624, 617, 609, 607, 539 and 537 (more likely, the actual dates 605, 604, 598, 589, 587, 539 and 538) -- these dates make up the majority, by far, of all the dates ever mentioned in the entire Insight book, including all mentions of 29 C.E. and 33 C.E. put together.
Compare the case of 607 carefully with how we deal with evidence or "no evidence" in other doctrinal matters. I thought it was very revealing. In matters like "stauros" and several others, for example, the publications don't show the same fear and avoidance of the evidence.

I am still of the opinion that this secular date of 607 doesn't matter that much. Millions of JWs believe it was when the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judea was desolated, and the year the last Davidic king was deposed. For many years now, I've known that there is overwhelming evidence against this date, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened 20 years after the date that our publications promote. Again, I don't think anyone should make a big deal about a date, and the date is "in the same ball-park," only a couple of decades off. That's less than 1% error for an event that happened about 2,624 years ago.
Millions of Witnesses who accept it do not have any reason to look into it to make sure about it. Why should they? Witnesses should have no reason to be skeptical of the publications, and the publications state very clearly that 607 is the secular date for this Biblical event, without question. I think that it is to be expected, therefore, that most of us will merely defend the date 607 because of the way it is presented in the publications. It appears to be what we should do. It is transparent on this forum that defending 607 has become another way of defending "slave" itself, which has become part of the belief and faith that we naturally defend from a scriptural point of view:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . . So all of us have that scriptural desire and reason to defend our beliefs, which is why I am sure that you and Arauna and others are presenting your views honestly, and with the right motive. My own reason for concern is not so much about the date itself, as explained above, but just an explanation of why I myself cannot honestly promote it. For me it's much more about honesty than the date itself. Looking very carefully and prayerfully at our own explanations in our publications I can see no Biblical reason to concern ourselves with either 607 or 587 or 539 or 537, whether the dates are correct or not. These dates are only as valuable to us as say 1513 B.C.E. or 740 B.C.E.
But I also believe I see evidence that the "slave" does not believe in 607, either. I believe the "slave" must feel trapped into this belief and have not yet found a clear way out. I base this opinion on the way in which the writers deal with evidence that reveals that the writers don't want the evidence questioned because they know what will be found. This shows a fear of the evidence. The very careful way in which they dealt with Furuli's evidence in October and November 2011 was very revealing. Even Insight shows that the writers knew more than they could say.
In fact, it is made to appear that this secular date has scholarly support. In many scholarly publications you will see a "c." for "circa" or "about" in front of a date, or else a range of dates is mentioned so that you can know that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Insight book does this too, in places -- but NEVER for 607. Here's an example:
*** it-1 p. 192 Ashkelon ***
In the prophecy of Amos (c. 804 B.C.E.) prediction was made of defeat for the ruler of Ashkelon. (Am 1:8) Secular history shows that in the succeeding century Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria made Asqaluna (Ashkelon) a vassal city. Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) uttered two prophecies involving Ashkelon. While Jeremiah 47:2-7 could have seen some fulfillment when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city early in his reign (c. 624 B.C.E.), the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:17-20, 28, 29 clearly indicates a fulfillment subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Zephaniah’s prophecy (written before 648 B.C.E.) also foretold a coming desolation for Ashkelon, along with other Philistine cities, after which the remnant of Judah would eventually occupy “the houses of Ashkelon.” (Zep 2:4-7) Finally, about 518 B.C.E., Zechariah proclaimed doom for Ashkelon . . .
In fact, the 607-date chronology is inserted into quotes and references from authorities as if it were referenced from there when it was not.
*** 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, . . . *** 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. 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. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power. . . . One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.). Grayson and Pritchard, although referenced as authorities, actually offer contrary evidence, showing that the event marked here for 624 was actually 604, 625 was actually 605, 617 was 597, and the event marked here for 588 is actually 568 -- therefore the date marked 607 would actually be 587.
So although the Jerusalem event marked 607 was actually 587/6, according to all the referenced authorities found in Insight (these and dozens of others, including those not referenced), the Insight book chooses to refer to 607 as if it has never been questioned. Insight mentions the date 607 authoritatively, about 150 times.
To keep 607 in the limelight and evidently to avoid questions about thinking about the Biblical definition of the 70 years, the Insight book not only says 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, but also claims it was his "1st year" by another reckoning. Compare these two claims from Insight:
*** it-1 pp. 1185-1186 Image ***
Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream . . . *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was both 625 and 607 according to the Insight book. Yet Grayson, Pritchard and a thousand other sources would agree that it was 605.
Also, to keep 607 in the limelight the events of 598 and 589 through 587 are sometimes tied to just 607 as the "pivotal" year. For example, note that this last siege lasted for a year and a half, and a siege prior to this was about 10 years earlier. 
*** it-2 p. 1065 Tammuz, II ***
It was on the ninth day of this fourth month (Tammuz) that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. after an 18-month siege. Insight often admits that the siege was dated 2 years earlier and 10/11 years earlier, but notice the shorthand sometimes preferred for referencing Jerusalem's siege:
*** it-1 p. 1242 Jackal ***
Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. brought the stress of famine, with the result that mothers treated their own offspring cruelly. Thus Jeremiah appropriately contrasted the cruelty “of my people” with the jackals’ maternal care.—La 4:3, 10. The point, of course, is that the one date most in question of all dates that the Society uses, is always presented as if it is the one date least in question. It is repeated 150 times in the Insight book alone. And dates that fall within the period, including 625, 624, 617, 609, 607, 539 and 537 (more likely, the actual dates 605, 604, 598, 589, 587, 539 and 538) -- these dates make up the majority, by far, of all the dates ever mentioned in the entire Insight book, including all mentions of 29 C.E. and 33 C.E. put together.
Compare the case of 607 carefully with how we deal with evidence or "no evidence" in other doctrinal matters. I thought it was very revealing. In matters like "stauros" and several others, for example, the publications don't show the same fear and avoidance of the evidence.

His full name was given in some non-English editions of the Awake! Below is information from a cached webpage.

My thoughts exactly @The Librarian
So many concerning takeaways from this article.
1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh?
2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 
3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).
4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

The 2006 Watchtower Library CD does not have the ability to update. It was not part of the program code.

It might not seem right or fair, but when one quotes an academic, it is actually important to get the context.
(In this case it would have meant reading and understanding the point made here: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/g11-046#.WkfFXN-nFPa
and then recognizing that the quote could still have been used but with an explanation that Singh himself was trying to show just how poorly people understand the theory of evolution and how poorly even biologists have explained it. For this reason, he says, not only lay people, but even a lot of academics don't believe it.
The quote, if used correctly, could still have had some impact for the point the Awake! was making, especially since the opening graphic/survey question was based upon that quote. After removing it, the opening was much weaker, relying mostly on just 'Gerard the entomologist.' And if you have read enough of our publications you know that whenever a possible expert is only given a first name, or given just a generic title without a name, that he is probably a Witness, and we don't want that fact made too obvious, out of fear that it makes the argument seem weaker. Some countries, especially in Europe, have begun to look down upon this type of quote as "yellow" so that European language Watchtowers and Awakes will often contain the last name. (And, in Europe, the likelihood of someone knowing him or trying to contact 'Gerard the entomologist' is much lower.)

So, with regret Ann, you have demonstrated the reason for the Society's warning: "If the spiritual food passes through other channels, there is no guarantee that it has not been altered or contaminated." (I will resist posting the other two words).
Is it time for the forum to close? That's a decision for those who run it. But for any genuine Jehovah's Witnesses, it is time to say.... goodbye! 
In the short time I have been active here, I have gained a most useful insight into the thinking of a wide range of people, both favourably and unfavourably disposed. I have picked up a wealth of information on a whole range of topics I probably would not have been able to discuss anywhere else. I like to think I may have been able to contribute a little with 1096 upvotes of one type or another.
I have noted of late a more determined "anti" GB presence here, and I include the tendency of some to rather patronisingly treat them with disrespect. I suppose an inevitable price that is paid to have a tolerant, freedom of speech policy, but a sad reality of any freedom is that abuse by a few brings restriction for many!
So, to those of you with whom the interchange has been pleasant,
¡Te veo en el otro lado, espero!
And to those of you who felt otherwise, thanks for the time.
You may look for me, but this time I really have for good!