JW Insider

Congratulations, seriously!!

There you have it!

Apologies if this sounds too blunt, but that is simply a false statement. Sorry.

You do realize that we got this doctrine from Christendom, right?
 

Your last paragraph there is preaching to the choir. I agreed 100% with @Arauna on those sentiments. But I disagree that we, (in representing and promoting the Watchtower's doctrines), should so slavishly put faith in the secular date 539/8 as if it is some holy grail that stands by itself. In truth, the evidence for 539/8 is excellent, but it really is NOT as good as the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's "18th/19th" corresponds to 587/6. (Sorry about the slashes.) I like something that @Gone Fishing said, about how we rely on secular chronology for a doctrine that seems so important to a lot of us here. What you said about 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 is actually what opened my eyes to finally look at the evidence myself. And that's why I blame-shifted and projected the same useful counsel right back onto Russell himself. Why would any doctrine for Christians need to be based on a secular date like 539/8? Our 1914 doctrine REQUIRES that we put slavish faith in this secular date, in spite of everything we are willing to denigrate about secular dates, scientists, archaeologists.
I have no problem at all pointing to the times we have been living in since 1914 as evidence that we need God's Kingdom to be manifested for all mankind. It's the only solution, and it is all the more proved to be the only solution, as man gets himself further and further into trouble. The more advantages and knowledge we have for solving problems, the worse things get, based on greed and the human condition. Sorry . . . .now who's preaching to the choir?
You also asked that question about "What preaching campaign did he . . . found?"
I don't think he would have had patience to work on this from 1968 to 1975 if he was really looking to start something himself. Of course, I can see how ego might have come into play, but I don't know him, and I've heard that he was one of those who likes a low profile. It's easier for me to picture someone who likes to do research as a person who wants to keep a low profile, because that's also the way I am in front of people in the congregation. Probably true of most nerdy types. He must have respected the brothers in Brooklyn enough to want to ask the full question correctly, dotting all the i's and crossing all t's (assuming they have those letters in cuneiform). I'm sure he thought the brothers would be interested because it was obvious that what he was learning was very relevant to the 1914 doctrine. I talked to two brothers on the Aid Book project who said they already knew what was coming even before they had seen what  COJ had sent. They said they could guess what was in it, and had known themselves since the 1960's. But both of these brothers thought it better to just discuss it only with trusted friends.
By 1980 every researcher associated with the 1969 "Chronology" article in the Aid Book was under suspicion, and most were dismissed from Bethel before the end of 1980. But they remained elders and special pioneers because this is what they really wanted. It wasn't until someone came around to disfellowship one of them that he was forced out, not because he wanted to be disfellowshipped. From what I have read, it's the same with R.Franz. He wanted to stay in the brotherhood, and in his congregation, and had nothing against any and nothing against the Society, and no reason to "badmouth" it. It seems that in both cases, the books they wrote were published only after they believed there was false information being spread. In a related case, when I was at Bethel, I knew a few of the proofreaders especially because they often needed reference books to look up exact quotes, even for translating to other languages. When I heard that 4 of them were under questioning, 2 married couples, I saw one brother's wife trying to hide tears at lunchtime. When I told the brother that I heard the rumor, he said it was tough but, fortunately, Brother Sydlik had said he thought it would be OK for them because as he supposedly said "I can tell that you and your wife really love Jehovah, and that's why you don't really have anything to worry about." By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread. Later we discovered that one of the wives was not disfellowshipped, but somehow that didn't stop the ugly rumors from being stated as solid facts by then. My point is that none of the brothers I knew who had been either involved or semi-involved in this apostasy had really wanted to leave and start anything on their own.

Your last paragraph there is preaching to the choir. I agreed 100% with @Arauna on those sentiments. But I disagree that we, (in representing and promoting the Watchtower's doctrines), should so slavishly put faith in the secular date 539/8 as if it is some holy grail that stands by itself. In truth, the evidence for 539/8 is excellent, but it really is NOT as good as the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's "18th/19th" corresponds to 587/6. (Sorry about the slashes.) I like something that @Gone Fishing said, about how we rely on secular chronology for a doctrine that seems so important to a lot of us here. What you said about 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 is actually what opened my eyes to finally look at the evidence myself. And that's why I blame-shifted and projected the same useful counsel right back onto Russell himself. Why would any doctrine for Christians need to be based on a secular date like 539/8? Our 1914 doctrine REQUIRES that we put slavish faith in this secular date, in spite of everything we are willing to denigrate about secular dates, scientists, archaeologists.
I have no problem at all pointing to the times we have been living in since 1914 as evidence that we need God's Kingdom to be manifested for all mankind. It's the only solution, and it is all the more proved to be the only solution, as man gets himself further and further into trouble. The more advantages and knowledge we have for solving problems, the worse things get, based on greed and the human condition. Sorry . . . .now who's preaching to the choir?
You also asked that question about "What preaching campaign did he . . . found?"
I don't think he would have had patience to work on this from 1968 to 1975 if he was really looking to start something himself. Of course, I can see how ego might have come into play, but I don't know him, and I've heard that he was one of those who likes a low profile. It's easier for me to picture someone who likes to do research as a person who wants to keep a low profile, because that's also the way I am in front of people in the congregation. Probably true of most nerdy types. He must have respected the brothers in Brooklyn enough to want to ask the full question correctly, dotting all the i's and crossing all t's (assuming they have those letters in cuneiform). I'm sure he thought the brothers would be interested because it was obvious that what he was learning was very relevant to the 1914 doctrine. I talked to two brothers on the Aid Book project who said they already knew what was coming even before they had seen what  COJ had sent. They said they could guess what was in it, and had known themselves since the 1960's. But both of these brothers thought it better to just discuss it only with trusted friends.
By 1980 every researcher associated with the 1969 "Chronology" article in the Aid Book was under suspicion, and most were dismissed from Bethel before the end of 1980. But they remained elders and special pioneers because this is what they really wanted. It wasn't until someone came around to disfellowship one of them that he was forced out, not because he wanted to be disfellowshipped. From what I have read, it's the same with R.Franz. He wanted to stay in the brotherhood, and in his congregation, and had nothing against any and nothing against the Society, and no reason to "badmouth" it. It seems that in both cases, the books they wrote were published only after they believed there was false information being spread. In a related case, when I was at Bethel, I knew a few of the proofreaders especially because they often needed reference books to look up exact quotes, even for translating to other languages. When I heard that 4 of them were under questioning, 2 married couples, I saw one brother's wife trying to hide tears at lunchtime. When I told the brother that I heard the rumor, he said it was tough but, fortunately, Brother Sydlik had said he thought it would be OK for them because as he supposedly said "I can tell that you and your wife really love Jehovah, and that's why you don't really have anything to worry about." By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread. Later we discovered that one of the wives was not disfellowshipped, but somehow that didn't stop the ugly rumors from being stated as solid facts by then. My point is that none of the brothers I knew who had been either involved or semi-involved in this apostasy had really wanted to leave and start anything on their own.

What you quoted above your question has nothing to do with COJ. I don't even know what you mean by "this is what COJ" did. Did what?
I don't dismiss it at all. All I am saying is that I have looked at the evidence. And of course I don't think ANYTHING is centered on 587/6. It just happens to coincide with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year based on the same evidence you use for saying that Cyrus captured Babylon in 539. The evidence makes me think both these dates are correct, but nothing is "centered" on either of them.
There has been a kind of obsession with COJ here. I would guess that most of the persons who have studied the evidence never heard of COJ. I certainly don't need to rely on anything he said to understand the evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline.
 
What you list here are not questions. They are not even attached to any ideas. Going back to questions that people in the 1800's and early 1900's had is like saying we should ignore all the new and updated doctrines of the Watch Tower Society and just focus on things that Russell didn't understand. You remind me here of those JW opposers who just throw things out there like:
Pyramidology. Miracle Wheat? The Solon Society. 1844? Rose Ball. Russell's father married Russell's wife's mother?  There is no burden on any of us to get into those topics unless they are being used to make an actual point related to the topic.
So if you would like to ask a real question, or show what the evidence was and how the question from the 1800's was already resolved and why you think that the resolution isn't good enough, then we have something to discuss. But you seem unwilling to do anything more than tack up some cryptic pseudo-questions. I'm more concerned with why anyone would need to fall back on such weak tactics. I'm guessing that you already know the answer to that.
We will certainly miss you. I don't care about defending COJ or concerning myself with anyone's obsession about him. Pretending that these questions center around COJ seems disingenuous unless you truly don't know any better. 
I believe that you are aware than most all of the questions that early writers had on the subject have already been resolved. You probably know about books such as  Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Albert Kirk Grayson, so I am sure you already know the answer. Still, if you really have a question, form it as one. Ask it! Say what you believe it would do to the timeline of the Neo-Babylonians. Show the evidence for it. No one can discuss a question that has no evidence for it. Or perhaps you are aware that the evidence is not valid.
That's why I gave that ridiculous analogy to what kind of proposal one can make with tablet data - assuming no one will check it against other evidence. I literally could propose that absurd theory that the Neo-Babylonian timeline is 40,000 years long. I can show some evidence for it, too. I could start with a tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and I can show another tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year. Then I merely assume that these were two different Nebuchadnezzar's and we therefore "know" that these two different kings must have reigned at least 37+17 years = 54 years. Then I find another tablet for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year and assume that this is another Nebuchadnezzar and know that these three different Nebuchadnezzars ruled for at least a total of 37+17+17 = 71 years, and so on, ad infinitum, or at least until I've done this with 2,000 different tablets until I reach 40,000 years. Of course, we know that the Egibi data on many of these very same tablets will contradict all my supposed evidence.
This is why you have to show your question and/or your proposal and/or your evidence, or else people will know that you don't have anything serious.
Then ask it; no one is stopping you.

What you quoted above your question has nothing to do with COJ. I don't even know what you mean by "this is what COJ" did. Did what?
I don't dismiss it at all. All I am saying is that I have looked at the evidence. And of course I don't think ANYTHING is centered on 587/6. It just happens to coincide with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year based on the same evidence you use for saying that Cyrus captured Babylon in 539. The evidence makes me think both these dates are correct, but nothing is "centered" on either of them.
There has been a kind of obsession with COJ here. I would guess that most of the persons who have studied the evidence never heard of COJ. I certainly don't need to rely on anything he said to understand the evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline.
 
What you list here are not questions. They are not even attached to any ideas. Going back to questions that people in the 1800's and early 1900's had is like saying we should ignore all the new and updated doctrines of the Watch Tower Society and just focus on things that Russell didn't understand. You remind me here of those JW opposers who just throw things out there like:
Pyramidology. Miracle Wheat? The Solon Society. 1844? Rose Ball. Russell's father married Russell's wife's mother?  There is no burden on any of us to get into those topics unless they are being used to make an actual point related to the topic.
So if you would like to ask a real question, or show what the evidence was and how the question from the 1800's was already resolved and why you think that the resolution isn't good enough, then we have something to discuss. But you seem unwilling to do anything more than tack up some cryptic pseudo-questions. I'm more concerned with why anyone would need to fall back on such weak tactics. I'm guessing that you already know the answer to that.
We will certainly miss you. I don't care about defending COJ or concerning myself with anyone's obsession about him. Pretending that these questions center around COJ seems disingenuous unless you truly don't know any better. 
I believe that you are aware than most all of the questions that early writers had on the subject have already been resolved. You probably know about books such as  Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Albert Kirk Grayson, so I am sure you already know the answer. Still, if you really have a question, form it as one. Ask it! Say what you believe it would do to the timeline of the Neo-Babylonians. Show the evidence for it. No one can discuss a question that has no evidence for it. Or perhaps you are aware that the evidence is not valid.
That's why I gave that ridiculous analogy to what kind of proposal one can make with tablet data - assuming no one will check it against other evidence. I literally could propose that absurd theory that the Neo-Babylonian timeline is 40,000 years long. I can show some evidence for it, too. I could start with a tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and I can show another tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year. Then I merely assume that these were two different Nebuchadnezzar's and we therefore "know" that these two different kings must have reigned at least 37+17 years = 54 years. Then I find another tablet for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year and assume that this is another Nebuchadnezzar and know that these three different Nebuchadnezzars ruled for at least a total of 37+17+17 = 71 years, and so on, ad infinitum, or at least until I've done this with 2,000 different tablets until I reach 40,000 years. Of course, we know that the Egibi data on many of these very same tablets will contradict all my supposed evidence.
This is why you have to show your question and/or your proposal and/or your evidence, or else people will know that you don't have anything serious.
Then ask it; no one is stopping you.

In the last book, Josephus wrote on the subject, he said that the time from the destruction of Jerusalem up to the release of the Jews from Babylon was 50 years not 70. But no one is relying on Josephus for the final say on this. He was not a contemporary even if he had access to some of the contemporary records. There is far too much evidence on the ground. We don't need Josephus even though he also ended up agreeing with the Biblical and secular evidence about this period.
You should expect a lot of polemical material as Judaism saw itself  competing with Christianity during the periods in which the Talmud was written. I agree about the Kabbalah and Zohar. In fact, most religious Jews would agree, too. Parts of it remind me of the Pyramidology which was gaining widespread popularity in Russell's day. Rutherford finally associated Pyramidology with Satanism (saying that Satan was behind the building of the Great Pyramid in order to fool Jehovah's people).
I believe that all three of these ideas are mistaken. There are different forms of Judaism, but I have never known even one to call the Talmud the 'holy book.' The kabbalah is most definitely not thought of as the "most holy book" by religious Jews. I took 7 semesters of Hebrew in college and most of them were taught by reformed rabbis. All of them dismissed the kabbalah as foolishness. I hired an orthodox rabbi for six months as a programmer and we often spoke about these topics. He says that no one in his branch of Judaism pays any attention to the kabbalah.
If you look up 'holy books' 'Judaism' on Google the Talmud does not show up in the lists on all the major Judaism sites. If you look up 'most holy book' 'kabbalah' you will find a few books antagonistic to Judaism that make this fake claim. The closest you might get is the idea that the Zohar is considered the most holy book of some who believe in Kabbalah as a kind of religion. But it's a study of mysticism that most Jews reject, or at least don't take seriously.
It's a lot like saying that most Christians believe that their daily horoscope is the most holy book of the Christian religion.
Yes, and usually it's a quick rebuff, but not always. My brother went to a Brooklyn congregation while at Bethel, and they do not even try to work their Jewish territories the way you seem to work seriously with persons of Muslim faith. It is usually just a matter of looking for non-Jews. But some are very receptive. I personally have never been able to do more than just talk, but I have even seen experiences of more than one who have become Witnesses.
The Soncino commentaries are in the Bethel Library and were the favorite of people in the Writing Department who had tried to study some Hebrew. Different authors were responsible for different translations and commentaries, a bit like the Anchor Bible commentaries. Of course, the writers are only interested in their take on the Torah and Haftorahs, not any of the other books that Soncino commentaries can cover.

Good question.
It reminds me of when a letter was written to Russell about the fact that there was no zero year. Russell answered the question and decided that we don't really know, but he would rather believe that there must have been one because if you count from 606 and other BC dates, this is how you reach 1874 and 1914, for example. It's kind of an embarrassing answer to have put in the Watch Tower for 100 years of posterity to look at. Of course, since then we discovered that the "questioner" was correct all along, and Russell was wrong, so we ultimately had to change the destruction date from 606 to 607. It took us until about 1943 to finally admit it, decades after it was pointed out and rejected.
The problem is that Russell pretended he was wise in a fleshly way rather than humbly looking into the evidence. It's fine to be foolish in the sense of being humble and accepting that we don't NEED such worldly knowledge, and we therefore never get puffed up with our supposed knowledge. But when you base half your doctrines on secular dates, as Russell did, you are stuck in a trap of trying to show that you are wise in a fleshly way. Russell tried this and ended up "boasting" in knowledge that turned out not even to be true.
If you would like to read the way Jonsson frames it, you can see below that I just grabbed this from a pdf version of his book. He claims he was a pioneer who was challenged by one of his Bible studies. The actual typewritten manuscript was collecting dust on a shelf in an office just outside the Bethel Library for a couple years.  In 1978, I heard it referred to as "that treatise from the elder in Sweden." This next long quote is from his book:
It was in 1968 that the present study began. At the time, I was a “pioneer” or full-time evangelist for Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the course of my ministry, a man with whom I was conducting a Bible study challenged me to prove the date the Watch Tower Society had chosen for the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, that is 607 B.C.E. He pointed out that all historians marked that event as having occurred about twenty years later, in either 587 or 586 B.C.E. I was well aware of this, but the man wanted to know the reasons why historians preferred the latter date. I indicated that their dating surely was nothing but a guess, based on defective ancient sources and records. Like other Witnesses, I assumed that the Society’s dating of the desolation of Jerusalem to 607 B.C.E. was based on the Bible and therefore could not be upset by those secular sources. However, I promised the man I would look into the matter. As a result, I undertook a research that turned out to be far more extensive and thoroughgoing than I had expected. It continued periodically for several years, from 1968 until the end of 1975. By then the growing burden of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date forced me reluctantly to conclude that the Watch Tower Society was wrong. Thereafter, for some time after 1975, the evidence was discussed with a few close, research-minded friends. Since none of them could refute the evidence demonstrated by the data I had collected, I decided to develop a systematically composed treatise on the whole question which I determined to send to the headquarters of the Watch Tower Society at Brooklyn, New York. That treatise was prepared and sent to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1977. The present work, which is based on that document, was revised and expanded during 1981 and then published in a first edition in 1983. During the years that have passed since 1983, many new finds and observations relevant to the subject have been made, and the most important of these have been incorporated in the last two editions. The seven lines of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date presented in the first edition, for example, have now been more than doubled.

What you quoted above your question has nothing to do with COJ. I don't even know what you mean by "this is what COJ" did. Did what?
I don't dismiss it at all. All I am saying is that I have looked at the evidence. And of course I don't think ANYTHING is centered on 587/6. It just happens to coincide with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year based on the same evidence you use for saying that Cyrus captured Babylon in 539. The evidence makes me think both these dates are correct, but nothing is "centered" on either of them.
There has been a kind of obsession with COJ here. I would guess that most of the persons who have studied the evidence never heard of COJ. I certainly don't need to rely on anything he said to understand the evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline.
 
What you list here are not questions. They are not even attached to any ideas. Going back to questions that people in the 1800's and early 1900's had is like saying we should ignore all the new and updated doctrines of the Watch Tower Society and just focus on things that Russell didn't understand. You remind me here of those JW opposers who just throw things out there like:
Pyramidology. Miracle Wheat? The Solon Society. 1844? Rose Ball. Russell's father married Russell's wife's mother?  There is no burden on any of us to get into those topics unless they are being used to make an actual point related to the topic.
So if you would like to ask a real question, or show what the evidence was and how the question from the 1800's was already resolved and why you think that the resolution isn't good enough, then we have something to discuss. But you seem unwilling to do anything more than tack up some cryptic pseudo-questions. I'm more concerned with why anyone would need to fall back on such weak tactics. I'm guessing that you already know the answer to that.
We will certainly miss you. I don't care about defending COJ or concerning myself with anyone's obsession about him. Pretending that these questions center around COJ seems disingenuous unless you truly don't know any better. 
I believe that you are aware than most all of the questions that early writers had on the subject have already been resolved. You probably know about books such as  Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Albert Kirk Grayson, so I am sure you already know the answer. Still, if you really have a question, form it as one. Ask it! Say what you believe it would do to the timeline of the Neo-Babylonians. Show the evidence for it. No one can discuss a question that has no evidence for it. Or perhaps you are aware that the evidence is not valid.
That's why I gave that ridiculous analogy to what kind of proposal one can make with tablet data - assuming no one will check it against other evidence. I literally could propose that absurd theory that the Neo-Babylonian timeline is 40,000 years long. I can show some evidence for it, too. I could start with a tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and I can show another tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year. Then I merely assume that these were two different Nebuchadnezzar's and we therefore "know" that these two different kings must have reigned at least 37+17 years = 54 years. Then I find another tablet for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year and assume that this is another Nebuchadnezzar and know that these three different Nebuchadnezzars ruled for at least a total of 37+17+17 = 71 years, and so on, ad infinitum, or at least until I've done this with 2,000 different tablets until I reach 40,000 years. Of course, we know that the Egibi data on many of these very same tablets will contradict all my supposed evidence.
This is why you have to show your question and/or your proposal and/or your evidence, or else people will know that you don't have anything serious.
Then ask it; no one is stopping you.

In the last book, Josephus wrote on the subject, he said that the time from the destruction of Jerusalem up to the release of the Jews from Babylon was 50 years not 70. But no one is relying on Josephus for the final say on this. He was not a contemporary even if he had access to some of the contemporary records. There is far too much evidence on the ground. We don't need Josephus even though he also ended up agreeing with the Biblical and secular evidence about this period.
You should expect a lot of polemical material as Judaism saw itself  competing with Christianity during the periods in which the Talmud was written. I agree about the Kabbalah and Zohar. In fact, most religious Jews would agree, too. Parts of it remind me of the Pyramidology which was gaining widespread popularity in Russell's day. Rutherford finally associated Pyramidology with Satanism (saying that Satan was behind the building of the Great Pyramid in order to fool Jehovah's people).
I believe that all three of these ideas are mistaken. There are different forms of Judaism, but I have never known even one to call the Talmud the 'holy book.' The kabbalah is most definitely not thought of as the "most holy book" by religious Jews. I took 7 semesters of Hebrew in college and most of them were taught by reformed rabbis. All of them dismissed the kabbalah as foolishness. I hired an orthodox rabbi for six months as a programmer and we often spoke about these topics. He says that no one in his branch of Judaism pays any attention to the kabbalah.
If you look up 'holy books' 'Judaism' on Google the Talmud does not show up in the lists on all the major Judaism sites. If you look up 'most holy book' 'kabbalah' you will find a few books antagonistic to Judaism that make this fake claim. The closest you might get is the idea that the Zohar is considered the most holy book of some who believe in Kabbalah as a kind of religion. But it's a study of mysticism that most Jews reject, or at least don't take seriously.
It's a lot like saying that most Christians believe that their daily horoscope is the most holy book of the Christian religion.
Yes, and usually it's a quick rebuff, but not always. My brother went to a Brooklyn congregation while at Bethel, and they do not even try to work their Jewish territories the way you seem to work seriously with persons of Muslim faith. It is usually just a matter of looking for non-Jews. But some are very receptive. I personally have never been able to do more than just talk, but I have even seen experiences of more than one who have become Witnesses.
The Soncino commentaries are in the Bethel Library and were the favorite of people in the Writing Department who had tried to study some Hebrew. Different authors were responsible for different translations and commentaries, a bit like the Anchor Bible commentaries. Of course, the writers are only interested in their take on the Torah and Haftorahs, not any of the other books that Soncino commentaries can cover.

Sometimes we have to clean out the puss before a wound can heal.  Cleaning the wound is painful..... but the results are so much better!  Thanks M'dear!   

Good question.
It reminds me of when a letter was written to Russell about the fact that there was no zero year. Russell answered the question and decided that we don't really know, but he would rather believe that there must have been one because if you count from 606 and other BC dates, this is how you reach 1874 and 1914, for example. It's kind of an embarrassing answer to have put in the Watch Tower for 100 years of posterity to look at. Of course, since then we discovered that the "questioner" was correct all along, and Russell was wrong, so we ultimately had to change the destruction date from 606 to 607. It took us until about 1943 to finally admit it, decades after it was pointed out and rejected.
The problem is that Russell pretended he was wise in a fleshly way rather than humbly looking into the evidence. It's fine to be foolish in the sense of being humble and accepting that we don't NEED such worldly knowledge, and we therefore never get puffed up with our supposed knowledge. But when you base half your doctrines on secular dates, as Russell did, you are stuck in a trap of trying to show that you are wise in a fleshly way. Russell tried this and ended up "boasting" in knowledge that turned out not even to be true.
If you would like to read the way Jonsson frames it, you can see below that I just grabbed this from a pdf version of his book. He claims he was a pioneer who was challenged by one of his Bible studies. The actual typewritten manuscript was collecting dust on a shelf in an office just outside the Bethel Library for a couple years.  In 1978, I heard it referred to as "that treatise from the elder in Sweden." This next long quote is from his book:
It was in 1968 that the present study began. At the time, I was a “pioneer” or full-time evangelist for Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the course of my ministry, a man with whom I was conducting a Bible study challenged me to prove the date the Watch Tower Society had chosen for the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, that is 607 B.C.E. He pointed out that all historians marked that event as having occurred about twenty years later, in either 587 or 586 B.C.E. I was well aware of this, but the man wanted to know the reasons why historians preferred the latter date. I indicated that their dating surely was nothing but a guess, based on defective ancient sources and records. Like other Witnesses, I assumed that the Society’s dating of the desolation of Jerusalem to 607 B.C.E. was based on the Bible and therefore could not be upset by those secular sources. However, I promised the man I would look into the matter. As a result, I undertook a research that turned out to be far more extensive and thoroughgoing than I had expected. It continued periodically for several years, from 1968 until the end of 1975. By then the growing burden of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date forced me reluctantly to conclude that the Watch Tower Society was wrong. Thereafter, for some time after 1975, the evidence was discussed with a few close, research-minded friends. Since none of them could refute the evidence demonstrated by the data I had collected, I decided to develop a systematically composed treatise on the whole question which I determined to send to the headquarters of the Watch Tower Society at Brooklyn, New York. That treatise was prepared and sent to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1977. The present work, which is based on that document, was revised and expanded during 1981 and then published in a first edition in 1983. During the years that have passed since 1983, many new finds and observations relevant to the subject have been made, and the most important of these have been incorporated in the last two editions. The seven lines of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date presented in the first edition, for example, have now been more than doubled.

Well, this is something new and refreshing. Someone appears to be willing to discuss the actual issues at hand. Unfortunately nearly all these issues had been brought up before by a certain @AllenSmith , and the answers are still the same as were given before.
I would say that of course, yes, the historical assigned dates CAN be compromised by historian's writings, or mistaken. This is one of the reasons you look for several different independent lines of evidence. In this case all the different independent lines of contemporary evidence all point to the same thing: 587/586 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The evidence is just as powerful, and in some ways more powerful, than the evidence for 539, which the Watchtower has called "absolute" and "assured." That's the problem with trying to punch holes in half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence. It's the same as saying that the evidence for 539 is potentially compromised or mistaken, except that we need that date in order to have a starting point to manipulate the earlier date. So we're kind of trapped: all the evidence that we are accepting is the same as the evidence that destroys our theory. The best we could ever hope for is that no one would have ever noticed the evidence. And for the most part, that has worked just fine, because very few Witnesses will look into this kind of research, even when -- or especially when -- it becomes evident that it creates conflicts with our strongly entrenched traditions.
You are talking about Nebuchadnezzar I, II, III, and IV. These are well understood. Also, any kings that ruled less than a year have no effect on the timeline. That's the beauty of having half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence that also interact smoothly and support each other. It turns out that ALL the evidence still creates only one timeline that fits. There aren't even like two or three top choices. One of the Nebuchadnezzars you speak of was not even part of the Neo-Bablonian timeline. He reigned hundreds of years outside of the timeline we are concerned about. And the other two are outside the part of the timeline we care about (and reigned only a few months each). Besides, the Watchtower already accepts the Neo-Babylonian timeline if they ever mention that the date 539 is accurate. If it's accurate, then it's because we are admitting that the Neo-Babylonian timelline is accurate. If we say that 587/6 is NOT accurate, then we are saying that 539 is not accurate. The argument you are making could be made about anything. Why question if there were only four Nebuchadnezzars? Why not propose that 2,000 different tablets that mention Nebuchadnezzars refer to 2,000 different kings named Nebuchanezzar? If all of them referred to a different Nebuchadnezzar, you would have to ADD all the regnal years from every tablet in such a case. This would also mean that (since year 20 is the average regnal year on these tablets) the Neo-Babylonian timeline was about 20 x 2000 or 40,000 years long. From your vantage point, as an opposer of the evidence, you could surmise anything you wanted about the evidence.
The other points you enumerated are not valid because you have no right to use any BCE dates for comparison if you don't accept the dates of the Neo-Babylonian period. You should never even use the date 539 or 538, if you don't really accept the chronology evidence that got you there. Just throwing out some questions, and claiming things are "perceived" when they really aren't perceived the way you say is a good way to try to poke holes. But it's meaningless unless you have an alternative theory that fits ALL the evidence, or at least tries to fit all the evidence. Then, to really test if that theory works with ALL the evidence, you put it out there and see if someone can find any contradictions in your proposal. I'm sure you have heard the expression "blowing smoke." It refers to the tactic of just throwing anything out there and hoping that it will stick. [It's not really a mixed metaphor, it just looks like one.] It's done without a concern about what it does to the rest of the evidence, or if it creates impossible contradictions. That's why you haven't really poked holes until you can hypothesize what it would mean as an alternative.

We listened to the record so much that it was all like one big song. If I start singing from the beginning I don't stop until Ascot Gavotte (which I never learned well enough). So that's the only thing that kept me from singing both sides straight through.
When I was about 8 we had a family move in from London with a strong British accent. I remember asking her* if she had any recordings from assemblies, or comedians, or anyone else who spoke with a Cockney accent. (*her: Only the mother and children attended meetings and the husband was many miles stand-offish.)  She gave me some reel-to-reel tapes her husband didn't want any more.
This was a Missouri congregation (1965), and although the sister's English was impeccable, a surprising number in the congregation thought she was literally speaking a foreign language.

That's pretty amazing. Just yesterday I tested myself to see if I still could sing that song, and just last week I played it through Amazon Alexa to my 17-month-old granddaughter. To my wife's chagrin, I still know every word to that song, and likely the entire Harrison/Hepburn repertoire for that neo-Pygmalion masterpiece. (When I grew up there were only a few movies we were allowed to watch and only about 4 records with lyrics that my father played for us. Therefore they got overplayed.)

That's actually called UPTOWN Charlotte.
 
[Edited to add the following response in response to a contorted-face emojicon that JTR added as a reaction to this post.]
Uptown [7] is the central business district of Charlotte. It is home to most of the city's major institutions, as well as being the historic core. It is also the geographic center of Charlotte, with the center point of the city at the intersection of Trade and Tryon Streets.   -- quoted from http://wikitravel.org/en/Charlotte/Uptown
 

Of course. The first thing to remember is that any time the Watchtower tries to defend a chronology that is not based on Biblical or secular evidence, you should start by looking at the words that the Watchtower has left out when a quote is made. In other words, the resources that the Watchtower uses are often well-respected resources, such as the Soncino commentary. When the topic is chronology, you can just assume that a respected commentary doesn't actually say what the Watchtower is trying to make you think that it says.
So, without even looking you will know that these commentaries have probably been misused, misquoted, or selectively quoted. This way it will give the appearance that respected scholarship supports the Watchtower view, when of course, it doesn't. Here's the full Soncino quote from Insight, but with the Soncino chronology added back in where the Watchtower left it out:
*** it-1 p. 462 Chronology ***
The Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Ezekiel, pp. 20, 21) is: “The guilt of the Northern Kingdom extended over a period of 390 years ([according to the] Seder Olam [the earliest postexilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language], [and Rabbis] Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Abarbanel, quoted by Malbim, reckons the period of Samaria’s guilt from the time when the schism took place under Rehoboam (c. 932 BCE). . . until the fall of Jerusalem. [*footnote] . . . The right [side, on which Ezekiel lay] indicates the south, i.e. the Kingdom of Judah which lay to the south or right. . . . Judah’s corruption lasted forty years beginning soon after Samaria’s fall. According to Malbim, the time is reckoned from the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (c. 626 BCE). . . when Jeremiah began his ministry. (Jer. i. 2).”—Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1950.
*[footnote] The entire Soncino Ezekiel commentary is consistent at dating the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE, as is the Soncino commentary on Jeremiah, etc.
The Watch Tower publications follow the very unethical practice of tacking on an extra 20 years to the prior dates before 607, without any explanation. This is why it isn't just 587/6 that they invariably leave out of scholarly quotations, but they must leave out most other dates related to the period. But in this case, they not only left out the dates, they also completely left out the "Jewish understanding of the prophecy." To save space I didn't include those explanations in the two other places where words were left out. The Jewish understanding, per Soncino, is that Ezekiel meant what he said: 390 years PLUS 40 years. The Watchtower completely disagrees saying:
*** w72 5/15 pp. 310-311 Do Not Try God’s Patience Too Far ***
However, in the actual fulfillment upon ancient Jerusalem, the forty days for the “error” of the “house of Judah” would run concurrently with the last forty days of the three hundred and ninety days for the “error” of the “house of Israel.” The unit of time measurement that Jehovah gave to Ezekiel was, “a day for a year,” made emphatic by being repeated. Accordingly, the forty years for the “error” of the “house of Judah” were to run concurrently with the last forty years of the 390-year period for the “error” of “the house of Israel.” The last forty years of that time period began in the year 647 B.C.E. Both time periods, the longer one and the shorter one, had to converge on the same date, for ancient Jerusalem was destroyed only once, namely, in 607 B.C.E.
You see what they did? They pretended they were giving the "Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible." Yet, they not only left out the chronology of the Jewish understanding, they completely left out the "Jewish understanding," too.
And of course the Watchtower added about 20 years to the thirteenth year of Josiah to change 626 to 647. If you did this in any scholarly setting, it would be considered devious. It's called "academic dishonesty."
 

After I dust off JTR in the ministry, let's you and I get together and sing a few rounds.

Of course. The first thing to remember is that any time the Watchtower tries to defend a chronology that is not based on Biblical or secular evidence, you should start by looking at the words that the Watchtower has left out when a quote is made. In other words, the resources that the Watchtower uses are often well-respected resources, such as the Soncino commentary. When the topic is chronology, you can just assume that a respected commentary doesn't actually say what the Watchtower is trying to make you think that it says.
So, without even looking you will know that these commentaries have probably been misused, misquoted, or selectively quoted. This way it will give the appearance that respected scholarship supports the Watchtower view, when of course, it doesn't. Here's the full Soncino quote from Insight, but with the Soncino chronology added back in where the Watchtower left it out:
*** it-1 p. 462 Chronology ***
The Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Ezekiel, pp. 20, 21) is: “The guilt of the Northern Kingdom extended over a period of 390 years ([according to the] Seder Olam [the earliest postexilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language], [and Rabbis] Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Abarbanel, quoted by Malbim, reckons the period of Samaria’s guilt from the time when the schism took place under Rehoboam (c. 932 BCE). . . until the fall of Jerusalem. [*footnote] . . . The right [side, on which Ezekiel lay] indicates the south, i.e. the Kingdom of Judah which lay to the south or right. . . . Judah’s corruption lasted forty years beginning soon after Samaria’s fall. According to Malbim, the time is reckoned from the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (c. 626 BCE). . . when Jeremiah began his ministry. (Jer. i. 2).”—Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1950.
*[footnote] The entire Soncino Ezekiel commentary is consistent at dating the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE, as is the Soncino commentary on Jeremiah, etc.
The Watch Tower publications follow the very unethical practice of tacking on an extra 20 years to the prior dates before 607, without any explanation. This is why it isn't just 587/6 that they invariably leave out of scholarly quotations, but they must leave out most other dates related to the period. But in this case, they not only left out the dates, they also completely left out the "Jewish understanding of the prophecy." To save space I didn't include those explanations in the two other places where words were left out. The Jewish understanding, per Soncino, is that Ezekiel meant what he said: 390 years PLUS 40 years. The Watchtower completely disagrees saying:
*** w72 5/15 pp. 310-311 Do Not Try God’s Patience Too Far ***
However, in the actual fulfillment upon ancient Jerusalem, the forty days for the “error” of the “house of Judah” would run concurrently with the last forty days of the three hundred and ninety days for the “error” of the “house of Israel.” The unit of time measurement that Jehovah gave to Ezekiel was, “a day for a year,” made emphatic by being repeated. Accordingly, the forty years for the “error” of the “house of Judah” were to run concurrently with the last forty years of the 390-year period for the “error” of “the house of Israel.” The last forty years of that time period began in the year 647 B.C.E. Both time periods, the longer one and the shorter one, had to converge on the same date, for ancient Jerusalem was destroyed only once, namely, in 607 B.C.E.
You see what they did? They pretended they were giving the "Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible." Yet, they not only left out the chronology of the Jewish understanding, they completely left out the "Jewish understanding," too.
And of course the Watchtower added about 20 years to the thirteenth year of Josiah to change 626 to 647. If you did this in any scholarly setting, it would be considered devious. It's called "academic dishonesty."
 

That's pretty amazing. Just yesterday I tested myself to see if I still could sing that song, and just last week I played it through Amazon Alexa to my 17-month-old granddaughter. To my wife's chagrin, I still know every word to that song, and likely the entire Harrison/Hepburn repertoire for that neo-Pygmalion masterpiece. (When I grew up there were only a few movies we were allowed to watch and only about 4 records with lyrics that my father played for us. Therefore they got overplayed.)

And worst of all, assuming honest mistakes (Hahahahahaa),
there is NEVER an apology ... just MORE clouds, MORE smoke, and mirrors.
... and of course ... blaming the uninvolved.

Of course. The first thing to remember is that any time the Watchtower tries to defend a chronology that is not based on Biblical or secular evidence, you should start by looking at the words that the Watchtower has left out when a quote is made. In other words, the resources that the Watchtower uses are often well-respected resources, such as the Soncino commentary. When the topic is chronology, you can just assume that a respected commentary doesn't actually say what the Watchtower is trying to make you think that it says.
So, without even looking you will know that these commentaries have probably been misused, misquoted, or selectively quoted. This way it will give the appearance that respected scholarship supports the Watchtower view, when of course, it doesn't. Here's the full Soncino quote from Insight, but with the Soncino chronology added back in where the Watchtower left it out:
*** it-1 p. 462 Chronology ***
The Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Ezekiel, pp. 20, 21) is: “The guilt of the Northern Kingdom extended over a period of 390 years ([according to the] Seder Olam [the earliest postexilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language], [and Rabbis] Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Abarbanel, quoted by Malbim, reckons the period of Samaria’s guilt from the time when the schism took place under Rehoboam (c. 932 BCE). . . until the fall of Jerusalem. [*footnote] . . . The right [side, on which Ezekiel lay] indicates the south, i.e. the Kingdom of Judah which lay to the south or right. . . . Judah’s corruption lasted forty years beginning soon after Samaria’s fall. According to Malbim, the time is reckoned from the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (c. 626 BCE). . . when Jeremiah began his ministry. (Jer. i. 2).”—Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1950.
*[footnote] The entire Soncino Ezekiel commentary is consistent at dating the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE, as is the Soncino commentary on Jeremiah, etc.
The Watch Tower publications follow the very unethical practice of tacking on an extra 20 years to the prior dates before 607, without any explanation. This is why it isn't just 587/6 that they invariably leave out of scholarly quotations, but they must leave out most other dates related to the period. But in this case, they not only left out the dates, they also completely left out the "Jewish understanding of the prophecy." To save space I didn't include those explanations in the two other places where words were left out. The Jewish understanding, per Soncino, is that Ezekiel meant what he said: 390 years PLUS 40 years. The Watchtower completely disagrees saying:
*** w72 5/15 pp. 310-311 Do Not Try God’s Patience Too Far ***
However, in the actual fulfillment upon ancient Jerusalem, the forty days for the “error” of the “house of Judah” would run concurrently with the last forty days of the three hundred and ninety days for the “error” of the “house of Israel.” The unit of time measurement that Jehovah gave to Ezekiel was, “a day for a year,” made emphatic by being repeated. Accordingly, the forty years for the “error” of the “house of Judah” were to run concurrently with the last forty years of the 390-year period for the “error” of “the house of Israel.” The last forty years of that time period began in the year 647 B.C.E. Both time periods, the longer one and the shorter one, had to converge on the same date, for ancient Jerusalem was destroyed only once, namely, in 607 B.C.E.
You see what they did? They pretended they were giving the "Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible." Yet, they not only left out the chronology of the Jewish understanding, they completely left out the "Jewish understanding," too.
And of course the Watchtower added about 20 years to the thirteenth year of Josiah to change 626 to 647. If you did this in any scholarly setting, it would be considered devious. It's called "academic dishonesty."
 

Of course. The first thing to remember is that any time the Watchtower tries to defend a chronology that is not based on Biblical or secular evidence, you should start by looking at the words that the Watchtower has left out when a quote is made. In other words, the resources that the Watchtower uses are often well-respected resources, such as the Soncino commentary. When the topic is chronology, you can just assume that a respected commentary doesn't actually say what the Watchtower is trying to make you think that it says.
So, without even looking you will know that these commentaries have probably been misused, misquoted, or selectively quoted. This way it will give the appearance that respected scholarship supports the Watchtower view, when of course, it doesn't. Here's the full Soncino quote from Insight, but with the Soncino chronology added back in where the Watchtower left it out:
*** it-1 p. 462 Chronology ***
The Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Ezekiel, pp. 20, 21) is: “The guilt of the Northern Kingdom extended over a period of 390 years ([according to the] Seder Olam [the earliest postexilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language], [and Rabbis] Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Abarbanel, quoted by Malbim, reckons the period of Samaria’s guilt from the time when the schism took place under Rehoboam (c. 932 BCE). . . until the fall of Jerusalem. [*footnote] . . . The right [side, on which Ezekiel lay] indicates the south, i.e. the Kingdom of Judah which lay to the south or right. . . . Judah’s corruption lasted forty years beginning soon after Samaria’s fall. According to Malbim, the time is reckoned from the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (c. 626 BCE). . . when Jeremiah began his ministry. (Jer. i. 2).”—Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1950.
*[footnote] The entire Soncino Ezekiel commentary is consistent at dating the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE, as is the Soncino commentary on Jeremiah, etc.
The Watch Tower publications follow the very unethical practice of tacking on an extra 20 years to the prior dates before 607, without any explanation. This is why it isn't just 587/6 that they invariably leave out of scholarly quotations, but they must leave out most other dates related to the period. But in this case, they not only left out the dates, they also completely left out the "Jewish understanding of the prophecy." To save space I didn't include those explanations in the two other places where words were left out. The Jewish understanding, per Soncino, is that Ezekiel meant what he said: 390 years PLUS 40 years. The Watchtower completely disagrees saying:
*** w72 5/15 pp. 310-311 Do Not Try God’s Patience Too Far ***
However, in the actual fulfillment upon ancient Jerusalem, the forty days for the “error” of the “house of Judah” would run concurrently with the last forty days of the three hundred and ninety days for the “error” of the “house of Israel.” The unit of time measurement that Jehovah gave to Ezekiel was, “a day for a year,” made emphatic by being repeated. Accordingly, the forty years for the “error” of the “house of Judah” were to run concurrently with the last forty years of the 390-year period for the “error” of “the house of Israel.” The last forty years of that time period began in the year 647 B.C.E. Both time periods, the longer one and the shorter one, had to converge on the same date, for ancient Jerusalem was destroyed only once, namely, in 607 B.C.E.
You see what they did? They pretended they were giving the "Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible." Yet, they not only left out the chronology of the Jewish understanding, they completely left out the "Jewish understanding," too.
And of course the Watchtower added about 20 years to the thirteenth year of Josiah to change 626 to 647. If you did this in any scholarly setting, it would be considered devious. It's called "academic dishonesty."