JW Insider

There is nothing wrong with the WT counting back 70 years from 539. I believe that the 70 years starts from 70 years prior to 539, too. And of course, there is a definite connection between the 70 years given to Babylon and the chance for Judea to pay off its sabbaths. So Judea also pays off its sabbaths during the desolation of the 70 years Jehovah gave authority to Babylon. To me the Bible seems pretty clear about ending the 70 years when the kingdom of Persia takes over and not one or two years later, as the Watchtower suggests. That's because of what the 70 years really are, 70 years for Babylon's dominion, not 70 years of total desolation of Judea. However, I am not a stickler for all Biblical numbers having to be exactly counted the way we immediately think we should count them. When the Bible says a man's years are 70 or 80 (lifespan) I don't think that this means no one has ever lived to be 82 or died naturally at age 68, or 75. When the Bible says Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, I don't think that we need be concerned that it was all of Saturday, but perhaps only a few short hours on Friday afternoon and Sunday early morning. So, if the WT has good reason to believe it ran from 607 to 537, I would be very happy with that.
But here is the snag. 539 is not a Biblical date. It's a secular date. The reasons we know that this secular date is accurate are here:
because it's 66 years from Nebuchadnezzar's first year, because it's 9 years before Cambyses' first year, because it's 23 years after Evil Merodach's first year, because it's 21 years after Neriglissar's first year, because it's 17 years after Labasi-Marduk's short reign because it's 17 years after Nabonidus' first year because it's 87 years after Nabopolassar's first year In other words the only reason we know 539 is accurate is because we know the lengths of the kings' reigns from Nabopolassar to Cambyses, and a bit beyond (in both directions). We should never speak of the year 539 unless we are accepting that it is a date 66 years after the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, for example. In other words, if we say that we believe we can use the date 539 for the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon, then we can only say this if we believe that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587.
---------------
Another reason we know that 587 and 539 are accurate is because there are not just one or two, but DOZENS of points throughout the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings where we have astronomical evidence that points to only one particular year. In every case there is no question or contradiction about all of them fitting perfectly with each other. Not all data is still readable, of course, but all that is fits the timeline without contradicting the other forms of evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there are literally tens of thousands of clay tablets that have no particular political or religious purpose that just happen to coincide with exactly the same lengths of each kings' reign as the later "king lists" that were copied and retained in much later years. Also, the clay tablets only match the same number of years of each king's reign that also coincidentally happens to fit all the other evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there is a second thread of information that runs through hundreds of the clay tablets which provides a second witness by giving us the names of another parallel "dynasty" of the generations of the house of Egibi, who were something like the CEO's or bank presidents. They also happen to confirm the exact lengths of all the kings in the same way that coincides with all other forms of evidence.
[This form of cross-checking in enormously helpful, especially when a loan is known to have started in a certain year of one king and one "bank president," and then end in a certain year of the next king. Also if a certain "bank president" is always active for every transaction that happens in the early part of a particular year of a particular king, but the son of that "bank president" is said to be the new "bank president" for the remainder of that king's year and even into the first few years of the next king, we have a whole new way to validate the order of the kings and the lengths of their reigns. It becomes similar to the way, in Egyptian chronology, when the records of special bulls were kept along with their ages and under which king's year they were born, and under which king's year they died.]
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because of a couple of kings' lists that were discovered to be contemporary with almost the entire set of Neo-Babylonian kings. These are not late versions of kings' lists like those that survive through Ptolemy's works -- which also happen to confirm the Neo-Babylonian period of lengths of kings' reigns, with no contradictions to any of the other pieces of evidence.
----------------
By the same token, if we don't believe that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587, then we have no right to speak of the first [accession] year of Cyrus over Babylon as 539. Simply put, using the date 539 means that we accept the same dating system that puts Neb's 19th year in 587. It would be dishonest to speak of 539, if we didn't believe that.
Also, because Jewish and Babylonian years don't start on January 1st and end on December 31st, it's a little more proper to say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year starts in 587 and ends in 586. Also since Nebuchadnezzar became king late in 605, this was only a partial year, or accession year, and his "official" first year was therefore 604. Therefore by that count, 587 started his 18th year official year, but the Bible often uses a method where the accession year is counted and with that method this would be called his 19th year. 
*Note: some of the years and lengths mentioned above are going to be one year off due to avoiding the lengthiness of precise language accounting for the difference in cardinal/ordinal - accession/non-accession.

That's the first time I've ever heard of anyone supposing those are two different alternative dates for VAT4956. Rolf Furuli, for example, wrote a book that claimed that VAT4956 could refer to both 587 AND 588 for its lunar observations, but admits that it clearly refers to both 568 AND 567 for the other astronomical observations.
No one I have ever heard of thinks that VAT 4956 is supposed to be read to coincide with 587 instead of 588.
LOL. You seem to be having a lot of fun. Let's review: Your claim was this from your quote repeated here:
I claimed that you were correct, in that everyone is entitled to apply whatever standards they wish. But if anyone wants to publish their reasons or try to convince others with their evidence, then they SHOULD be willing to have it scrutinized. You just said they should be entitled to NOT have it scrutinized. I disagree. For example:
you should have the right to scrutinize what I say you should have the right to scrutinize what Grayson says you should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says you should have the right to scrutinize what the Watchtower says Furuli should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says Darren Thompson should have the right to scrutinize what Furuli says I should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says The Watchtower should have the right to scrutinize what Ptolemy says I agree with this, and I think most Witnesses are trained to agree with it. Even though you say you don't, I think even you agree with it. So I had to wonder why you were indicating that this author apparently had a right NOT to be scrutinized. Surely everyone, published or not, is entitled to their opinion about someone else's published work. 
Exactly. It seemed you were the only one who thought that was even a question, however, based on your odd claim that a particular author should not be scrutinized. At least we can now see you don't really believe it. For me, however, that whole diversion about "opinion and scrutiny"just seemed like a contrived red herring, because the question I was addressing was what you asked Ann about the relevance of VAT4956.
 

No. The author is saying that VAT 4956 does matter, and therefore it should be precisely redated to his own preferences which are about 200 years off from Grayson, P&D, Furuli, COJ, Watchtower, scholar JW, etc.
No. The author does not believe these are the possible reference sets of dates for Nebuchadnezzar's reign indicated by VAT4956. Nor for any of the other sets of dates you mentioned, either. The quoted page (35) was indicating dates that the author does NOT accept. You agree with this right?
Didn't know you or I or anyone else was looking for a "gotcha" moment. LOL. But it should be obvious that VAT 4956 cannot actually agree with all possible dates, including 607/606. I've never heard of anyone who would think of publishing such a claim, have you?
What skeptics? scholar JW? Foreigner? you? Thompson? If you are talking about VAT 4956, the Watchtower says:
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
Scholars say that all these positions occurred in 568/567 B.C.E., which would make the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, when he destroyed Jerusalem, 587 B.C.E The positions mentioned on the tablet cover both the years 567 and 568; not just one year or the other. I'd be skeptical of any skeptic who didn't understand this point.
From what I can tell, the misunderstanding must stem from this claim by @Foreigner:
It might look like that's true if you just read a page or two, but if you continue reading the context you will see that the author does NOT find the 19 years accurate for 586BC to 605BC. He thinks both those dates are off by a very specific amount that begins just over 200 years later.

There is nothing wrong with the WT counting back 70 years from 539. I believe that the 70 years starts from 70 years prior to 539, too. And of course, there is a definite connection between the 70 years given to Babylon and the chance for Judea to pay off its sabbaths. So Judea also pays off its sabbaths during the desolation of the 70 years Jehovah gave authority to Babylon. To me the Bible seems pretty clear about ending the 70 years when the kingdom of Persia takes over and not one or two years later, as the Watchtower suggests. That's because of what the 70 years really are, 70 years for Babylon's dominion, not 70 years of total desolation of Judea. However, I am not a stickler for all Biblical numbers having to be exactly counted the way we immediately think we should count them. When the Bible says a man's years are 70 or 80 (lifespan) I don't think that this means no one has ever lived to be 82 or died naturally at age 68, or 75. When the Bible says Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, I don't think that we need be concerned that it was all of Saturday, but perhaps only a few short hours on Friday afternoon and Sunday early morning. So, if the WT has good reason to believe it ran from 607 to 537, I would be very happy with that.
But here is the snag. 539 is not a Biblical date. It's a secular date. The reasons we know that this secular date is accurate are here:
because it's 66 years from Nebuchadnezzar's first year, because it's 9 years before Cambyses' first year, because it's 23 years after Evil Merodach's first year, because it's 21 years after Neriglissar's first year, because it's 17 years after Labasi-Marduk's short reign because it's 17 years after Nabonidus' first year because it's 87 years after Nabopolassar's first year In other words the only reason we know 539 is accurate is because we know the lengths of the kings' reigns from Nabopolassar to Cambyses, and a bit beyond (in both directions). We should never speak of the year 539 unless we are accepting that it is a date 66 years after the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, for example. In other words, if we say that we believe we can use the date 539 for the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon, then we can only say this if we believe that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587.
---------------
Another reason we know that 587 and 539 are accurate is because there are not just one or two, but DOZENS of points throughout the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings where we have astronomical evidence that points to only one particular year. In every case there is no question or contradiction about all of them fitting perfectly with each other. Not all data is still readable, of course, but all that is fits the timeline without contradicting the other forms of evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there are literally tens of thousands of clay tablets that have no particular political or religious purpose that just happen to coincide with exactly the same lengths of each kings' reign as the later "king lists" that were copied and retained in much later years. Also, the clay tablets only match the same number of years of each king's reign that also coincidentally happens to fit all the other evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there is a second thread of information that runs through hundreds of the clay tablets which provides a second witness by giving us the names of another parallel "dynasty" of the generations of the house of Egibi, who were something like the CEO's or bank presidents. They also happen to confirm the exact lengths of all the kings in the same way that coincides with all other forms of evidence.
[This form of cross-checking in enormously helpful, especially when a loan is known to have started in a certain year of one king and one "bank president," and then end in a certain year of the next king. Also if a certain "bank president" is always active for every transaction that happens in the early part of a particular year of a particular king, but the son of that "bank president" is said to be the new "bank president" for the remainder of that king's year and even into the first few years of the next king, we have a whole new way to validate the order of the kings and the lengths of their reigns. It becomes similar to the way, in Egyptian chronology, when the records of special bulls were kept along with their ages and under which king's year they were born, and under which king's year they died.]
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because of a couple of kings' lists that were discovered to be contemporary with almost the entire set of Neo-Babylonian kings. These are not late versions of kings' lists like those that survive through Ptolemy's works -- which also happen to confirm the Neo-Babylonian period of lengths of kings' reigns, with no contradictions to any of the other pieces of evidence.
----------------
By the same token, if we don't believe that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587, then we have no right to speak of the first [accession] year of Cyrus over Babylon as 539. Simply put, using the date 539 means that we accept the same dating system that puts Neb's 19th year in 587. It would be dishonest to speak of 539, if we didn't believe that.
Also, because Jewish and Babylonian years don't start on January 1st and end on December 31st, it's a little more proper to say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year starts in 587 and ends in 586. Also since Nebuchadnezzar became king late in 605, this was only a partial year, or accession year, and his "official" first year was therefore 604. Therefore by that count, 587 started his 18th year official year, but the Bible often uses a method where the accession year is counted and with that method this would be called his 19th year. 
*Note: some of the years and lengths mentioned above are going to be one year off due to avoiding the lengthiness of precise language accounting for the difference in cardinal/ordinal - accession/non-accession.

The rest of the post should make it clearer however that "There is nothing wrong with the WT counting back 70 years from 539" as long as the WT admits that you can't honesty use the term "539" without also accepting that "587" is the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. I have no problem starting the 70 years in 609 or even 607, but I can't honestly use the term 609 or 607 unless I'm referring to a time more than 20 years before Jerusalem was destroyed.
But it would also be dishonest of me to make a claim that "Bible chronology" would place Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year in the year 607. If you have been told 1,000 times that this idea shows that we put "Bible" chronology over "secular" chronology then the whole idea will have a "ring of truth" -- but it's still dishonest.

There is nothing wrong with the WT counting back 70 years from 539. I believe that the 70 years starts from 70 years prior to 539, too. And of course, there is a definite connection between the 70 years given to Babylon and the chance for Judea to pay off its sabbaths. So Judea also pays off its sabbaths during the desolation of the 70 years Jehovah gave authority to Babylon. To me the Bible seems pretty clear about ending the 70 years when the kingdom of Persia takes over and not one or two years later, as the Watchtower suggests. That's because of what the 70 years really are, 70 years for Babylon's dominion, not 70 years of total desolation of Judea. However, I am not a stickler for all Biblical numbers having to be exactly counted the way we immediately think we should count them. When the Bible says a man's years are 70 or 80 (lifespan) I don't think that this means no one has ever lived to be 82 or died naturally at age 68, or 75. When the Bible says Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, I don't think that we need be concerned that it was all of Saturday, but perhaps only a few short hours on Friday afternoon and Sunday early morning. So, if the WT has good reason to believe it ran from 607 to 537, I would be very happy with that.
But here is the snag. 539 is not a Biblical date. It's a secular date. The reasons we know that this secular date is accurate are here:
because it's 66 years from Nebuchadnezzar's first year, because it's 9 years before Cambyses' first year, because it's 23 years after Evil Merodach's first year, because it's 21 years after Neriglissar's first year, because it's 17 years after Labasi-Marduk's short reign because it's 17 years after Nabonidus' first year because it's 87 years after Nabopolassar's first year In other words the only reason we know 539 is accurate is because we know the lengths of the kings' reigns from Nabopolassar to Cambyses, and a bit beyond (in both directions). We should never speak of the year 539 unless we are accepting that it is a date 66 years after the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, for example. In other words, if we say that we believe we can use the date 539 for the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon, then we can only say this if we believe that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587.
---------------
Another reason we know that 587 and 539 are accurate is because there are not just one or two, but DOZENS of points throughout the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings where we have astronomical evidence that points to only one particular year. In every case there is no question or contradiction about all of them fitting perfectly with each other. Not all data is still readable, of course, but all that is fits the timeline without contradicting the other forms of evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there are literally tens of thousands of clay tablets that have no particular political or religious purpose that just happen to coincide with exactly the same lengths of each kings' reign as the later "king lists" that were copied and retained in much later years. Also, the clay tablets only match the same number of years of each king's reign that also coincidentally happens to fit all the other evidence.
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there is a second thread of information that runs through hundreds of the clay tablets which provides a second witness by giving us the names of another parallel "dynasty" of the generations of the house of Egibi, who were something like the CEO's or bank presidents. They also happen to confirm the exact lengths of all the kings in the same way that coincides with all other forms of evidence.
[This form of cross-checking in enormously helpful, especially when a loan is known to have started in a certain year of one king and one "bank president," and then end in a certain year of the next king. Also if a certain "bank president" is always active for every transaction that happens in the early part of a particular year of a particular king, but the son of that "bank president" is said to be the new "bank president" for the remainder of that king's year and even into the first few years of the next king, we have a whole new way to validate the order of the kings and the lengths of their reigns. It becomes similar to the way, in Egyptian chronology, when the records of special bulls were kept along with their ages and under which king's year they were born, and under which king's year they died.]
Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because of a couple of kings' lists that were discovered to be contemporary with almost the entire set of Neo-Babylonian kings. These are not late versions of kings' lists like those that survive through Ptolemy's works -- which also happen to confirm the Neo-Babylonian period of lengths of kings' reigns, with no contradictions to any of the other pieces of evidence.
----------------
By the same token, if we don't believe that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587, then we have no right to speak of the first [accession] year of Cyrus over Babylon as 539. Simply put, using the date 539 means that we accept the same dating system that puts Neb's 19th year in 587. It would be dishonest to speak of 539, if we didn't believe that.
Also, because Jewish and Babylonian years don't start on January 1st and end on December 31st, it's a little more proper to say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year starts in 587 and ends in 586. Also since Nebuchadnezzar became king late in 605, this was only a partial year, or accession year, and his "official" first year was therefore 604. Therefore by that count, 587 started his 18th year official year, but the Bible often uses a method where the accession year is counted and with that method this would be called his 19th year. 
*Note: some of the years and lengths mentioned above are going to be one year off due to avoiding the lengthiness of precise language accounting for the difference in cardinal/ordinal - accession/non-accession.

In fact, both dates conform to the exact same set of sources. They are both part of the same NB chronology which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence from all the archaeological and astronomical sources. You could use 8 sources and come up with both 539 and 587 as correct, and you use only four of those sources and still come up with both dates as correct. You could also dismiss those 4 you just used, and use the other 4 and still see that both dates are correct. You simply cannot accept the data for 539 without also accepting the data for 587.

I was assigned to give a Manhattan tour to several of the new Gilead classes around the period from 1977-1981. There were two churches on the tour, and one (St. Patrick's) we would enter if there was not a major event going on at the time. About half the class would not enter and I was told to expect this and just let them know it was considered to be completely up to them, and to please stay nearby if they were not comfortable. Often the instrumental organ or choir music was beautiful and a couple times I heard it mentioned that even those who went in felt bad for enjoying it.

The opening bell at 9:30 at the New York Stock Exchange is a more religious experience for a lot of New Yorkers.

That's the first time I've ever heard of anyone supposing those are two different alternative dates for VAT4956. Rolf Furuli, for example, wrote a book that claimed that VAT4956 could refer to both 587 AND 588 for its lunar observations, but admits that it clearly refers to both 568 AND 567 for the other astronomical observations.
No one I have ever heard of thinks that VAT 4956 is supposed to be read to coincide with 587 instead of 588.
LOL. You seem to be having a lot of fun. Let's review: Your claim was this from your quote repeated here:
I claimed that you were correct, in that everyone is entitled to apply whatever standards they wish. But if anyone wants to publish their reasons or try to convince others with their evidence, then they SHOULD be willing to have it scrutinized. You just said they should be entitled to NOT have it scrutinized. I disagree. For example:
you should have the right to scrutinize what I say you should have the right to scrutinize what Grayson says you should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says you should have the right to scrutinize what the Watchtower says Furuli should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says Darren Thompson should have the right to scrutinize what Furuli says I should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says The Watchtower should have the right to scrutinize what Ptolemy says I agree with this, and I think most Witnesses are trained to agree with it. Even though you say you don't, I think even you agree with it. So I had to wonder why you were indicating that this author apparently had a right NOT to be scrutinized. Surely everyone, published or not, is entitled to their opinion about someone else's published work. 
Exactly. It seemed you were the only one who thought that was even a question, however, based on your odd claim that a particular author should not be scrutinized. At least we can now see you don't really believe it. For me, however, that whole diversion about "opinion and scrutiny"just seemed like a contrived red herring, because the question I was addressing was what you asked Ann about the relevance of VAT4956.
 

Photo by Steve Bronstein, an advertising photographer.
https://stevebronstein.com/Portfolio/9/caption
He describes how he designed/produced the shot.
(Psst, it's photographic art - not real.)

I can only suggest that you try not to feel provoked whenever someone makes an observation.
Actually, you must have misunderstood, because that's completely false. I made the observation that the author wants to move the date of VAT 4956 by 200 years from the 2nd Edition, not the first edition you are claiming I got it from. Using the link, I noticed that I could not easily find out the exact date the author wished to assign to VAT 4956. Although there was enough information to detect it, it might not have been easy to follow the logic, and it might have looked like just an opinion. Since it was easy to find the exact number spelled out in the first edition, I knew this would make the point easier to explain and follow. 
At any rate, I can't help but see how clearly your misunderstandings have already been answered -- multiple times. So I'm only responding at this point in case of confusion to others.
I wasn't too concerned with the first question that @Foreigner asked @scholar JW. References to VAT 4956 being "wrong by about 200 years" are also there in the first edition, and the author therefore sees it as "the most important astronomical artifact" to overcome (p.7). So it remains a part of the subtext, even for page 35, in that first post. However, I was responding to another question that Foreigner asked as follows . . . .
Foreigner was evidently under the impression that "this wasn't adjusted" not realizing evidently that it was adjusted. 
Not true at all. In fact, I showed exactly how the author's calculation for VAT 4956 was made exactly to fit the theory described and exactly how it fit in to the theory mentioned on page 35.
Yes, these are the standard dates that the author never agrees with on any pages of the book in any edition. And if you are asking, yes, he also thinks that 605-586=19. But that doesn't matter because he thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed in 390 BC. And he also thinks that the Jews remained in Babylon for only 49 years. (But he also says that they were returned after only 40 years in 350 BC, rather than 539/8.)

We know exactly what it is. In Luke's account Jesus paralleled it with the encroachment of Rome around the city of Jerusalem.
(Luke 21:20-24) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. . . .24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. Rome would ultimately destroy the city and temple itself, the seat of the very earthly organization that had represented Jehovah's holy people, his holy nation. The Bible never says that there is a second fulfillment, but it doesn't have to. We know from the rest of scripture that the application is for all of us to continue to be on the watch, because the worldly powers continue to encroach upon us. The end can come at any time, and waiting on some specific action to occur with the United Nations or some other entity could end up misleading us if we are trying to "divine" how close the end is based on what happens to worldly entities around us.

I know some who don't, but it is not a rule. I for one would never miss the Sistine chapel! 
While out on the ministry in England, as teenagers, we would sometimes stop and go inside a church and look for God's name in the big Bible by the pulpit. We would leave it open at Psalms 83.
 

The opening bell at 9:30 at the New York Stock Exchange is a more religious experience for a lot of New Yorkers.

What do you do when you spy the woman of wickedness trying to climb out of the ephah jar? (Zech 5:7)
You grab the brazen hussy by the scruff the neck and boot her back down into the jar from where she came. (taking care in these volatile times that you do not get accused of harassment) Then you summon the two with wings to ship her back to Babylon.
Maybe it was a reminder to the Jews who had just come from there to check their own ephah jars - or even their shoes, lest they had tracked something in. 
Incidentally, present at our meeting was an Iraqi man who has responded to the Arabic group. The actual  Babylon means something to him, unlike to anyone else. He says it is the site of a festival each year, with music and food. Also that there is the slogan everyone knows: 'Babylon will rise again.'

Ann
Indeed! I had forgotten about ChannelC.  I believe I posted there for  a time and I think it was the  only site that COJ  posted but I cannot recall Young's articles coming up for discussion but I surrender to your recall on these matters.
scholar JW

I can only suggest that you try not to feel provoked whenever someone makes an observation.
Actually, you must have misunderstood, because that's completely false. I made the observation that the author wants to move the date of VAT 4956 by 200 years from the 2nd Edition, not the first edition you are claiming I got it from. Using the link, I noticed that I could not easily find out the exact date the author wished to assign to VAT 4956. Although there was enough information to detect it, it might not have been easy to follow the logic, and it might have looked like just an opinion. Since it was easy to find the exact number spelled out in the first edition, I knew this would make the point easier to explain and follow. 
At any rate, I can't help but see how clearly your misunderstandings have already been answered -- multiple times. So I'm only responding at this point in case of confusion to others.
I wasn't too concerned with the first question that @Foreigner asked @scholar JW. References to VAT 4956 being "wrong by about 200 years" are also there in the first edition, and the author therefore sees it as "the most important astronomical artifact" to overcome (p.7). So it remains a part of the subtext, even for page 35, in that first post. However, I was responding to another question that Foreigner asked as follows . . . .
Foreigner was evidently under the impression that "this wasn't adjusted" not realizing evidently that it was adjusted. 
Not true at all. In fact, I showed exactly how the author's calculation for VAT 4956 was made exactly to fit the theory described and exactly how it fit in to the theory mentioned on page 35.
Yes, these are the standard dates that the author never agrees with on any pages of the book in any edition. And if you are asking, yes, he also thinks that 605-586=19. But that doesn't matter because he thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed in 390 BC. And he also thinks that the Jews remained in Babylon for only 49 years. (But he also says that they were returned after only 40 years in 350 BC, rather than 539/8.)

As you indicate, it all depends on the value of the evidence. For some reason the Watchtower writers thought they were dependent only on Ptolemy for many years and thought that they could speak about how accurate Ptolemy was when they liked a date, and then denigrated Ptolemy as inaccurate when they didn't like a date.
Also, for some time, especially with the early 1960's release of a public talk outline on the "Gentile Times," the Watchtower, perhaps inadvertently, began a kind of competition between VAT 4956 and BM 33066, by often mentioning how this tablet proved that Cyrus' first year was 539. (In the talk outline, it was not called BM 33066, but "Strm Kambys 400" which speakers just called "Strom Cambyses" for some reason. I heard the talk from 3 different speakers over the years.)
But it turned out that every possible way in which attempts were made to denigrate VAT 4956 would have just as troublesome, if not more so, for BM 33066. More recently, this has been admitted, better in "Insight" than in the "Aid" book, and better, even in the infamous 2011 articles where Furuli's roughshod ride over the VAT 4956 evidence somehow went unchecked.
*** w11 10/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon. Not that there is any real reason to doubt the overall value of either VAT 4956 or BM 33066 in helping to confirm the dates for the Neo-Babylonian/Persian empire. But if the same kind of looseness of interpretation and inaccurate analysis had been allowed on BM 33066 that the Watchtower publications (and Furuli) had already imposed on VAT 4956, then this tablet would be considered to be of even less value than the already denigrated VAT 4956.

Jesus Christ
Ph. 2:9: "For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name"
(PS. Another no brainer...This is getting a bit silly!!)

Flip her lid!

Obviously, all those who become eligible for Christian baptism, which is an act of faith, must have had knowledge of that requirement imparted to them at some point by someone, as no one is born understanding the need for Christian baptism. Rom.10:17 makes that clear surely:
"So faith follows the thing heard. In turn, what is heard is through the word about Christ."
As for how crucial a study conductor is to one's eventual eligibility for baptism?????
I know more than one that was baptised without going through a bible study program with a conductor in any consistent manner. I had 3 different study conductors, and with one, I actually took the study myself on a number of occasions,  as the person frequently hadn't prepared. I know one person who just got up and said yes to the questions at the assembly about 44 years ago, without having had a study conductor, and has happily served Jehovah ever since. So, in some cases perhaps, a study conductor served as a hindrance rather than a help toward baptism eligibility.
And of course there are those who have had excellent study conductors, gone through a consistent program of study with a couple or more books, got baptised and who were very soon disfellowshipped or drifted away. Were they eligible for baptism? Who knows?
Eligibility for baptism is described fairly clearly in the book of Acts: 
“Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit." Acts 2:38
“Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out, so that seasons of refreshing may come from Jehovah himself" Acts 3:19
The baptisms seem to have followed some kind of of instruction by someone in the know, although the time-scale differs. For example, a discourse and evidence of holy spirit was enough for some who had already quite a scriptural knowledge and way of life in the earliest days of the congregation. Acts 2:27-38;41.  Later, after Phillip spoke at some length instructing the Ethiopian eunuch, he was obviously eligible for baptism because, "when they came to a body of water, and the eunuch said: “Look! Here is water; what prevents me from getting baptized?” Acts 9:36. It seems nothing because "With that he [the eunuch] commanded the chariot to halt, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he [Philip] baptized him." Acts 9:38.
Apollos later needed assistance to understand matters more fully because "when Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him."  Acts18:26. Presumably, a suitable baptism followed for Apollos, because a little later, after Paul's instructing some Ephesian disciples of a similar understanding to Apollos, "they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:5.
So it would appear that eligibility for baptism depends on the individual repenting, turning around and (in harmony with the spirit of texts such as Matt.16:24, Rom.12:1, 1Pet.3:21) dedicating or setting themselves aside for a sacred purpose.
A suitably qualified study conductor may well be of great assistance in that process.

 

It's free of charge and without obligation to become one yourself.

His dates do not agree with the archaeological and historical evidence. He believes Azariah reigned during the 605 - 586 BCE period, that Josiah died in 412 BCE, and he dates Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar to 390 BCE. So no, he does not stick to the biblical and archaeological evidence in their entirety but makes up his own timeline according to his biases and presuppositions.

Re: quote box below reproducing article from w11, 11/1.
1. The article didn't disclose who the 'researchers' were so readers could check their work for themselves (a peculiar omission given the article's writer(s) had gone to great pains to reference other academic sources).
2. The article's claim that "all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E." is demonstrably false. Do an internet search for more details.
Also see one past discussion from this forum: LINK