JW Insider

Red pill to go back in time to fix all my mistakes until I get right up to the very last mistake I had made before going back. That would, of course, be the time that someone offered me a blue and red pill, and I took the red one. I will then fix that mistake by taking the blue pill this time. This way I can have my cake and eat it too!
Of course, that last step isn't even necessary because every mistake I ever made included all the days I sold stock or traded mutual funds a day too early or held onto them a day too long. Fixing those mistakes will easily produce the extra 10 million in cash.

I hope no one felt slighted by Anna's remark about sparring partners. I certainly don't feel that anyone is at any kind of disadvantage, especially not you, or @AllenSmith, or  @Gone Fishing (Eoin), or @TiagoBelager, and others. (The last is a new name to me who impresses me with his maturity, organized thoughts, and style.) Resources are so easily available to everyone. All this information is available on the Internet, in the Bible, in Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries. Even a close study of the changes and contradictions over the years, using ONLY the Watch Tower publications could lead one to the same conclusions being discussed here. If this were some completely esoteric issue that very few people could know about, then it might be wrong to even question it in a forum such as this, because it would simply be a matter of someone pontificating about a belief with no fair opportunity for anyone to respond, add to it, or discredit it. If we don't bring it up, our Bible students will rarely bring it up. And our overall message has been simplified somewhat so that the appeal is less and less to persons with the kind of educational background who would care to question it, anyway.
But on the other hand, it's dishonest to just make a claim that goes against the evidence without an explanation for WHY we are dismissing the evidence. It would be exactly as if there was a religion that started claiming that World War I started in 1894, not 1914. If we were in such a religion, we could claim it in 6,666 different places in various religious publications, and say that our Bible interpretation tells us this is true, so therefore we know it's true, and we could tell everyone who challenges it, that they are putting secular dates above the Bible dates. If someone were to challenge it with encyclopedias, coins, receipts, then they might be told they were being haughty. In religion, the leaders and members have the prerogative to do this.  But what would we think if the religion just started publishing the dates of everything prior to World War 1 by adding 20 years to it, and didn't offer an explanation? 
That's pretty much what happens even to things like the date for the "Fall of Nineveh" in 612. Because for 1914 to work, the Watch Tower publications also need to change this to 632, adding 20 years to it.
*** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E.
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The fall of the empire. The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end.—Isa 10:12, 24-26; 23:13; 30:30-33; 31:8, 9; Na 3:1-19; Zep 2:13.
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Du?uzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.)
There is no evidence to move this from 612 to 632, but the Watch Tower publications have no choice, because all these dates are tied together, and must be manipulated so that 1914 still works.
Remember that it doesn't matter at all to me. It's our publications that say that the SECULAR date given for the end of the Babylonian empire in 539 is so accurate that they call it "assured" and even "absolute." That's the Watchtower that called this date "absolute." And therefore, our publications pretend that dates like 632 BCE for the fall of Nineveh are "set in stone." If you read the article on "Assyria" in the Insight book, you would even think that Babylonian Chronicle "21901" provides evidence for 632 BCE. You might also think that the same chronicle states that Haran was conquered in 629 even though all the archaeological evidence consistently points to 609 and no archaeological evidence points to 629. In fact, the publications continue to insist on these dates where they simply add 20 to the secular dates without any explanation in 99% of the cases. 
By the way, you might think that the Babylonian dates depend on the Assyrian (which depended on the Egyptian). But this isn't true. Those TEN THOUSAND pieces of evidence related to the Neo-Babylonian period include astronomical diaries and other interlocking tablet evidence that consistently supports, what the Watchtower calls the "accepted chronology." I'm not claiming that the Neo-Babylonian period is set in stone, but this would evidently have been the opinion of the Governing Body based on what the Watchtower, referenced in a previous post, has claimed here:
INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED
When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. The scientific law of probabilities imparts a united strength to the strands of the cable of chronology far greater than the sum of the individual lines of evidence. This is a law which is implicitly relied upon in important affairs: viz., that when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance; if it is indicated in two ways, it is almost certain to be true; and if in more than two ways, it is usually impossible that it is by chance or that it is not true; and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty.
This is the actual level of independent lines of evidence behind the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year should be dated to 587 instead of 607. According to the Watchtower's line of reasoning, therefore, 587 would be the proper date, even if you threw out the Egyptian and Assyrian dates. It is NOT dependent on those synchronisms. Based on the evidence, the Watchtower is inadvertently here stating that 607 must be wrong, and 587 is a "proven certainty."
Of course, I don't believe it's a "proven certainty" any more than you do. But the problem is that anyone can look at this evidence for themselves. You do not have to be a specialist of any kind. Our methods of dismissing such evidence will come across exactly as dishonest as those who would argue that World War I started in 1894.
That's an excellent point.
Still plan on getting to that part of the discussion.
 

To all,
Let none of us fall into the trap of thinking that there is nothing crucially supplied our relationship with God by the guidance/corrections we are meant to find in our study of end-times prophecies (see as an example that we are meant to find such prophecy in the book of Revelation at 1:3; 22:7). Revelation alerts us that Satan would, in these last days, set traps for ensnaring unwary peoples of the earth into works of the flesh and into idolatrous (political) schemes, things opposed to God's Kingdom and His righteousness. Jehovah's people have taken to heart the prophecy of Revelation so that we neither add something to dilute any of its warnings, nor hide/withhold in our preaching any part of the prophecy about the Kingdom and what role its establishment must have in our lives in these last days (cf. Revelation 22:18, 19).  We know the identities of the various beasts and the identity of Babylon the Great; we know what are our responsibilities towards peoples of the earth for our trying to help them to respond to the call we participate in giving, namely, "Come! . . . Let anyone who wishes take life's water free" (Revelation 22:17). Read again the following passages in Revelation as to how invaluable and crucial to us is our understanding and obedience to Revelation: Revelation 2:6, 10, 13, 15; 3:19; 7:9, 10, 15; 9:3-11, 19, 21; 10:11; 11:6, 7, 11-13; 12:11; 13:15; 14:4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16; 16:15, 21; 17:8, 9; 18:2, 3; 19:5, 6; 20:4; 21:8; 22:7, 11, 12, 15-17, 19.
Tiago
 

I hope no one felt slighted by Anna's remark about sparring partners. I certainly don't feel that anyone is at any kind of disadvantage, especially not you, or @AllenSmith, or  @Gone Fishing (Eoin), or @TiagoBelager, and others. (The last is a new name to me who impresses me with his maturity, organized thoughts, and style.) Resources are so easily available to everyone. All this information is available on the Internet, in the Bible, in Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries. Even a close study of the changes and contradictions over the years, using ONLY the Watch Tower publications could lead one to the same conclusions being discussed here. If this were some completely esoteric issue that very few people could know about, then it might be wrong to even question it in a forum such as this, because it would simply be a matter of someone pontificating about a belief with no fair opportunity for anyone to respond, add to it, or discredit it. If we don't bring it up, our Bible students will rarely bring it up. And our overall message has been simplified somewhat so that the appeal is less and less to persons with the kind of educational background who would care to question it, anyway.
But on the other hand, it's dishonest to just make a claim that goes against the evidence without an explanation for WHY we are dismissing the evidence. It would be exactly as if there was a religion that started claiming that World War I started in 1894, not 1914. If we were in such a religion, we could claim it in 6,666 different places in various religious publications, and say that our Bible interpretation tells us this is true, so therefore we know it's true, and we could tell everyone who challenges it, that they are putting secular dates above the Bible dates. If someone were to challenge it with encyclopedias, coins, receipts, then they might be told they were being haughty. In religion, the leaders and members have the prerogative to do this.  But what would we think if the religion just started publishing the dates of everything prior to World War 1 by adding 20 years to it, and didn't offer an explanation? 
That's pretty much what happens even to things like the date for the "Fall of Nineveh" in 612. Because for 1914 to work, the Watch Tower publications also need to change this to 632, adding 20 years to it.
*** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E.
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The fall of the empire. The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end.—Isa 10:12, 24-26; 23:13; 30:30-33; 31:8, 9; Na 3:1-19; Zep 2:13.
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Du?uzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.)
There is no evidence to move this from 612 to 632, but the Watch Tower publications have no choice, because all these dates are tied together, and must be manipulated so that 1914 still works.
Remember that it doesn't matter at all to me. It's our publications that say that the SECULAR date given for the end of the Babylonian empire in 539 is so accurate that they call it "assured" and even "absolute." That's the Watchtower that called this date "absolute." And therefore, our publications pretend that dates like 632 BCE for the fall of Nineveh are "set in stone." If you read the article on "Assyria" in the Insight book, you would even think that Babylonian Chronicle "21901" provides evidence for 632 BCE. You might also think that the same chronicle states that Haran was conquered in 629 even though all the archaeological evidence consistently points to 609 and no archaeological evidence points to 629. In fact, the publications continue to insist on these dates where they simply add 20 to the secular dates without any explanation in 99% of the cases. 
By the way, you might think that the Babylonian dates depend on the Assyrian (which depended on the Egyptian). But this isn't true. Those TEN THOUSAND pieces of evidence related to the Neo-Babylonian period include astronomical diaries and other interlocking tablet evidence that consistently supports, what the Watchtower calls the "accepted chronology." I'm not claiming that the Neo-Babylonian period is set in stone, but this would evidently have been the opinion of the Governing Body based on what the Watchtower, referenced in a previous post, has claimed here:
INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED
When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. The scientific law of probabilities imparts a united strength to the strands of the cable of chronology far greater than the sum of the individual lines of evidence. This is a law which is implicitly relied upon in important affairs: viz., that when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance; if it is indicated in two ways, it is almost certain to be true; and if in more than two ways, it is usually impossible that it is by chance or that it is not true; and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty.
This is the actual level of independent lines of evidence behind the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year should be dated to 587 instead of 607. According to the Watchtower's line of reasoning, therefore, 587 would be the proper date, even if you threw out the Egyptian and Assyrian dates. It is NOT dependent on those synchronisms. Based on the evidence, the Watchtower is inadvertently here stating that 607 must be wrong, and 587 is a "proven certainty."
Of course, I don't believe it's a "proven certainty" any more than you do. But the problem is that anyone can look at this evidence for themselves. You do not have to be a specialist of any kind. Our methods of dismissing such evidence will come across exactly as dishonest as those who would argue that World War I started in 1894.
That's an excellent point.
Still plan on getting to that part of the discussion.
 

Years ago, when reflecting about this same fact, I came to the same conclusion: Jehovah propitiated, tolerated in some way that His people was taught with a false, or incorrect idea, in order to a higher benefit:  strengthen the resolution of witnesses during IIWW in order to face the cruel persecution.
But, some questions arise:
·        Did the Christians of the first century need to think incorrectly about Romans 13 in order to resist the persecution of Nero? ·        When our point of view was finally rectified (I believe in 1963 or close) did the brethren under the steel curtain begin to be less faithful then? The answer is obvious. Isn’t it?
I fully agree with you regarding Moses, Israelites, loyalty and faith. So, perhaps you’re  annoying, to some extent, with thoughts openly exposed here by @JW Insider or myself, in the sense that certain teachings or explanations of the "slave class" are incorrect.
·        In the first place, is it necessary to be faithful to accept all the explanations provided by the slave? ·        Can I be faithful if, although I am not convinced of certain explanations, I try not to disturb others and I go ahead? Let me explain what I’m trying to do with this kind of situations.
In the recent regional convention, in the last talk, was mentioned the end is imminent (well, the Spanish expression was “inminente”, I suppose in English was used another equivalent). Now, not that I do not believe that the end is imminent, is that I do not know. My base: our Master declaration: “…at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.”
I’ve watched the danger of these kind of imprudent (in my view) declaration many times, during many years (1914, 1925, 1975, 1994 end of generation, now overlapped generation). Brothers disappointed, at some degree bitter. The clear majority of Jehovah’s servants don’t need a false sense of immediacy. We give Him the most day by day. The end will come at his own due time. Concerning this, one question:
·        Is it more loyal if you strive because you believe that the end is imminent? ·        What happens to those who do not know when the end comes, and despite this we give Jehovah one hundred percent? ·        Are we therefore less loyal? Do you know, in my zone, the most repeated expression after the convention? “the end is imminent, the slave said this”. My answer: “oh yes, when I was a child also believed the end was imminent, in 1975. Sometimes our wishes are so strong that make this kind of statements”.
Oh, I wish go further, but for several weeks I’ll be busy
 

You might be right but here's why it doesn't make any sense to me. AC refers to "Accepted Chronology" and WT refers to Watch Tower Chronology. In the "accepted chronology" the indignities against Jerusalem had gone on for 69 years, or even 71 years if you start from the major events from the 18-month siege lasting from 589 to the destruction in 587. In the Watch Tower's timeline, these indignities had started 90 years ago. Zechariah supports the "accepted chronology" (or vice versa) when he says that mercy had been withheld from Jerusalem for only 70 years, not 90 years as the Watchtower timeline says:
#AC                       [<-----------------about 70 years from 587 to 518------------------->] #WT   [<--------------------------about 90 years from 607 to 518------------------------------>] ...6..6......6.........5..5......5.........5.........5.........5.........55........5.........5.5.......5 ...1..0......0.........9..8......8.........7.........6.........5.........43........3.........2.1.......1 ...0..7......0.........0..7......0.........0.........0.........0.........09........0.........0.8.......0 The Insight book says that Zechariah 1:7 is dated to about 519 BCE, right? That's near the end of the 2nd year of Darius.
(Zechariah 1:7) . . .On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah . . .
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
*** it-2 p. 1226 Zechariah, Book of ***
About February 9, 519 B.C.E., the prophet Zechariah heard the words: “The whole earth is sitting still and having no disturbance.” (Zec 1:7, 11)
This would mean that the statements in Zechariah 7 were in 518 (almost 517) being now in the 4th year of Darius.
(Zechariah 7:1) . . .And in the fourth year of King Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to Zech·a·riʹah on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, the month of Chisʹlev. 2 The people of Bethʹel sent Shar·eʹzer and Reʹgem-melʹech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, 3 saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?”  4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?
(Zechariah 8:19) 19 “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah—festivals of rejoicing. . . .
You started out saying:
"Zechariah 7:5 expressly relates that there were lamentations and fasts that the Jews had practiced in the 5th and 7th months of every year for 70 years."
This reflects what we've been taught, that these lamentations and fasts had been practiced for 70 years, and the Watchtower suggests that these reflect the period of the 70 years between 607 and 537. Therefore the fasts would likely start on that first anniversary of 607 which would be the 5th and 7th month of 606, the following year in Babylon. They could end when the new foundation was laid in the 7th month of 537. (Ezra 3:1)  This would mean that the fasting in the 7th month would likely have run from 606 to 538. A total of 68 or 69 years, i.e., about 70 years.   But clearly, the fasting was still going on at the time of Zechariah's writing, 90 years after 607; it had not stopped 20 years earlier as the Watchtower suggests.
There have been a couple of explanations for Jehovah's disapproval of these fasts. The explanation you gave is one of them. Also:
*** w96 11/15 p. 5 Does God Require Fasting? ***
Some fasts established by the Jews met with God’s disapproval right from the outset. For example, at one time the people of Judah had four annual fasts to commemorate the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:1-4, 8, 9, 22-26; Zechariah 8:19) After the Jews were released from captivity in Babylon, Jehovah said through the prophet Zechariah: “When you fasted . . . , and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?” God did not approve of these fasts because the Jews were fasting and mourning over judgments that had come from Jehovah himself. They were fasting because of the calamity that befell them, not because of their own wrongdoing that led to it. After they were restored to their homeland, it was time for them to rejoice instead of bemoaning the past.—Zechariah 7:5.

You might be right but here's why it doesn't make any sense to me. AC refers to "Accepted Chronology" and WT refers to Watch Tower Chronology. In the "accepted chronology" the indignities against Jerusalem had gone on for 69 years, or even 71 years if you start from the major events from the 18-month siege lasting from 589 to the destruction in 587. In the Watch Tower's timeline, these indignities had started 90 years ago. Zechariah supports the "accepted chronology" (or vice versa) when he says that mercy had been withheld from Jerusalem for only 70 years, not 90 years as the Watchtower timeline says:
#AC                       [<-----------------about 70 years from 587 to 518------------------->] #WT   [<--------------------------about 90 years from 607 to 518------------------------------>] ...6..6......6.........5..5......5.........5.........5.........5.........55........5.........5.5.......5 ...1..0......0.........9..8......8.........7.........6.........5.........43........3.........2.1.......1 ...0..7......0.........0..7......0.........0.........0.........0.........09........0.........0.8.......0 The Insight book says that Zechariah 1:7 is dated to about 519 BCE, right? That's near the end of the 2nd year of Darius.
(Zechariah 1:7) . . .On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah . . .
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
*** it-2 p. 1226 Zechariah, Book of ***
About February 9, 519 B.C.E., the prophet Zechariah heard the words: “The whole earth is sitting still and having no disturbance.” (Zec 1:7, 11)
This would mean that the statements in Zechariah 7 were in 518 (almost 517) being now in the 4th year of Darius.
(Zechariah 7:1) . . .And in the fourth year of King Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to Zech·a·riʹah on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, the month of Chisʹlev. 2 The people of Bethʹel sent Shar·eʹzer and Reʹgem-melʹech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, 3 saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?”  4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?
(Zechariah 8:19) 19 “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah—festivals of rejoicing. . . .
You started out saying:
"Zechariah 7:5 expressly relates that there were lamentations and fasts that the Jews had practiced in the 5th and 7th months of every year for 70 years."
This reflects what we've been taught, that these lamentations and fasts had been practiced for 70 years, and the Watchtower suggests that these reflect the period of the 70 years between 607 and 537. Therefore the fasts would likely start on that first anniversary of 607 which would be the 5th and 7th month of 606, the following year in Babylon. They could end when the new foundation was laid in the 7th month of 537. (Ezra 3:1)  This would mean that the fasting in the 7th month would likely have run from 606 to 538. A total of 68 or 69 years, i.e., about 70 years.   But clearly, the fasting was still going on at the time of Zechariah's writing, 90 years after 607; it had not stopped 20 years earlier as the Watchtower suggests.
There have been a couple of explanations for Jehovah's disapproval of these fasts. The explanation you gave is one of them. Also:
*** w96 11/15 p. 5 Does God Require Fasting? ***
Some fasts established by the Jews met with God’s disapproval right from the outset. For example, at one time the people of Judah had four annual fasts to commemorate the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:1-4, 8, 9, 22-26; Zechariah 8:19) After the Jews were released from captivity in Babylon, Jehovah said through the prophet Zechariah: “When you fasted . . . , and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?” God did not approve of these fasts because the Jews were fasting and mourning over judgments that had come from Jehovah himself. They were fasting because of the calamity that befell them, not because of their own wrongdoing that led to it. After they were restored to their homeland, it was time for them to rejoice instead of bemoaning the past.—Zechariah 7:5.

I think it is an appeal that congregational unity is more important than individual opinion about doctrine.
Whenever the Governing Body issues direction on any doctrinal point, it may be that you, as a diligent student, noticed that point some time ago. If this was the world of churches, you would have gone out and started your own religion over it. How do you think there came to be so many sects and divisions among Christianity?
Instead, you essentially 'sit' on your opinion. Maybe the theocratic organization will come around to it someday. Maybe they will even in some way notice your expertise and seek you out on that account. At any rate, the responsibility is theirs, not yours.
It's a little dicey putting such opinion out there publicly because countless persons latch on whose only goal is to thwart Jehovah's Witnesses and what they stand for. Really - do you think the ones hostile would all be placated if the WBTS came around to a new opinion on just this one point? 
Still, as has been pointed out, not everyone with a different view of chronology has ill intent toward Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe there is something to be said for the fact that we, too, acknowledge different views exist and they are not categorically wrong just because we did not say it first.
None of this is to be harsh to JWI. He is smart regarding these matters of chronology and I am not. It is easy for me to say 'zip it' because I don't know anything. I don't think he is writing here to gain disciples for himself, as some have accused. I think, rather, that he does not want to see theocratic interests take it on the chin because of a wrong understanding. One can hardly say that the organization has never been wrong before. He is just exploring ideas and I like that. But I am not sure it does not stir up more dissension than it is worth, which is not good. Ultimately, publishing doctrinal light is the responsibility of someone else.
I haven't figured this out yet. I probably will not succeed in doing so.
 
 
 

I just want to know what "Bigly" world events happened in 1925 which outweighs 1914.... ... or any other date for that matter.  Any date which brought forth the world changing events of 1914.  Please help me out here!  You can change the date to whatever date you like with astounding reasonings and many quoted scriptures etc...... but I want to see the evidence on the ground!... and it must be really more significant than the events in and from 1914.  I am prepared to look at something I feel is really credible - otherwise you do not deserve  my attention!
Also - how much time is spent in teaching others about the Kingdom as instructed by Jesus.  This is our obligation.  We can spend all day in searching the scriptures and when we do not DO what Jesus said - all is in vain.  Our obedience is more important than knowledge because knowledge can puff us up and make us lose focus of bringing praise to Jehovah and warning  and informing our fellow humans on earth.  The attention of the focus can be ourselves if we indulge our own pleasures too much - whatever it is.
As you possibly may know my first language is not English and when I write fast I sometimes fail to check my sentences and my language... ..  I realize I am at a little disadvantage here! LOL  I am going to bow out gracefully now.  I have much preparation to do and I have been rushing in and out to return visits today..... so singing off in Sweden!
Good night.

Then why did the Watchtower ever change anything if everything was directly from scripture? Obviously you are saying that this might not have been true last year, because some things have already changed since then, but it must be true this year. But if it's true this year, then you are claiming that any changes made for next year are no longer directly from Scripture, unless of course you are arguing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. You are using cult-speak even though the Watchtower is not a cult.
Obviously we need to question ourselves first, but to answer your first question, it's our Christian obligation to question the anointed ones. You've seen a dozen scriptures to this effect, and you evidently do not believe in them. By whose power and authority do you decide it's OK to go against the Bible, and not to question the anointed ones?
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . .
(Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things,. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.
(2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . .
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.
(Romans 12:2) . . .be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings . . .
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .
(James 1:6) 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.
 

When evidence piles up against something very overwhelmingly, we really have no choice but to either accept the evidence or dismiss it. The easiest thing to do is to dismiss new evidence and go along as we always have. If we can dismiss evidence then we don't have to think about it. In this world, of course, especially modern news media and in social media, the most common method of dismissing evidence is to go after the person instead of the evidence. This is why you often see people making assumptions about motives.
If you think I'm saying this is what you are doing, I'm not. You have gone beyond the idea of merely dismissing evidence. You are rightly concerned about the motive behind it, and you are rightly concerned about what it would really mean to us if the evidence were accepted. This is not a simple dismissal of evidence in your case. I can see that you are not simply bringing this up  for a diversion to avoid thinking about it. 
So I'm glad you asked the questions:
"Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you? What is the purpose of it?"
Getting someone to agree is not the point. Many people already agree. But we learn not to worry when people don't agree with us in the field ministry. Yet our responsibility to present truth to the best of our ability does not change.
(John 4:23) 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.
Spending hours on a subject is not the preference for everyone, but there are persons for whom the opportunity for this kind of research is a joy and a privilege. For one thing, it helps me see first-hand the accuracy of the Bible, and how even secular sources of archaeology and history support the Bible account. Questions that produced contradictions in the past, now show the Bible to be harmonious, even on this very topic of chronology during the Neo-Babylonian period. And you get a better sense of the historical Babylonian world in which the Jews were exiled. There are about 4 of these questions that produced contradictions in the past. I've brought up 2 of them on the forum before, such as:
(Haggai 2:3) 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? . . .
(Ezra 3:12, 13) 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.
The question on these scriptures was about how many of these 95 to 105 year old people could have outcried the sounds of joy according to the Watchtower chronology? But the "accepted chronology" that fits both the Bible and secular evidence shows that this was the 75 to 105 year olds, not just those over 95 years old.
Another question was the meaning of the phrase "these 70 years" at a time that was 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 92 years, at least, after the deadly siege against it:
(Zechariah 1:12) 12 So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
(Zechariah 7:4, 5) 4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?
Why does the scripture say they were fasting for 70 years if the Watchtower says that this was 90 years later? The "accepted chronology" answers that exact question.  There are two more similar questions that I will get to later.
Of course, some will probably end up believing in the evidence and in the Bible's support for that evidence based on what I have presented. But it won't be just because I said it. On the Internet people say whatever they want and pretend to be whoever they want, so no one is going to accept it because I presented it. They will only do so after evaluating the evidence for themselves, and I'm guessing that 99% won't look at the evidence anyway. Still, we don't impugn each other for spending hours trying to get someone to agree with us, if we are convincing them to believe in 1914. If we are doing this because we are passionate for truth, then we have an obligation to support what we know to be true, if asked.
(Philippians 4:8) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things.
If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us?  We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what?
The next step is to continue to focus on all the things that Philippians 4:8 just mentioned. Nothing significant should change. One of the points of this is that we don't have to make our happy little group separate from other Witnesses. But, in time, as more persons are aware of the evidence, we won't have to be ashamed and cower at the idea of speaking out boldly and fearlessly about the things we have learned. Currently, most Witnesses, including myself, have to hold back from certain conversations even when they come up with other Witnesses we trust, for fear we will say something that will be interpreted as presumptuous, haughty, or stumbling. So in the meantime, there are 1,000 other true things we can focus on. 1,000 other serious concerns, righteous, chaste, lovable, virtuous, praiseworthy things that we can focus on. Against such things, there is no restriction. Also, this doesn't make us "smarter" than the slave. This is merely evidence, which is merely "knowledge." Knowledge pales into non-importance when compared, with love, justice, mercy, kindness, faith, hope, etc. In my own case, I learned about these things from members of the slave and members of the anointed who were just as concerned about truth, but had no way of presenting this information without getting into trouble from those who believed that nothing should be said that did not fully support the doctrines that Frederick Franz believed. (But it's also easy to understand why Brother Franz believed in the importance of this doctrine.) Several of these other brothers that I knew were concerned about losing their positions in Writing, and other positions of responsibility. Some have since died and some have evidently still not said much about it except to close friends. I don't think there is anything new here that the "slave" is not aware of. I don't know for sure, but I honestly guess that to many people in positions of responsibility in the organization, there just isn't a good way or opportunity to make adjustments yet. There is probably a fear that this will be very disruptive and may result in a great loss of publishers. I think the evidence shows that most of us would welcome the evidence if it were shown how it coincides with the message of Matthew 24, the stated meaning of Daniel 4, etc. And I would also guess that there are a few questions that remain that would be too difficult to answer immediately. This doesn't mean they can't be truthfully answered with "we don't know yet." The main thing is that I'm sure all of us would be more comfortable with humility and discretion in these matters as opposed to signs of presumptuousness and a tendency to claim full knowledge.
That is absolutely correct. I hope no one misunderstands.
WWI was definitely a major change in world affairs. And 537 is a reasonably good year for the building work to restart in Jerusalem. And 607 as the date of Jerusalem's fall (not Babylon's, of course) is not so far off either in the overall scheme of things, either (+- 20 years). Of course, there is no need to review why these ideas are never connected in the Bible. Even if Jerusalem fell in 607, the Bible does not connect a period to 607 as the start of the Gentile Times. Also, the Bible does not connect any period of 2,520 years to be counted from Jerusalem's fall.
Then we still have to discuss the meaning of the sign. The Jews were looking for the Parousia to be a time when war, earthquake, fire and famine would bring destruction. You can see this in the books that the Jews were using at the time to prepare for the end of the age. But Jesus appears to tell his disciples that even though they have heard that it was said that these signs would help them recognize the end-time, Jesus said to them not to be misled by wars, earthquakes, and famine. So the one thing we would NOT want to look for as a sign of the end would be a major war of any kind, or major earthquakes, or food shortages. I won't go too far into that subject here, but we should at least be able to see that this is a possible way to read Jesus' words in Matthew 24.
No argument was made that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule. In fact, I believe the dream can help to give us faith in exactly that prospect. After all, even though it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar the point was that Jehovah is the universal sovereign and can repeat this any time, or as many times as he wants. No empire can overpower Jehovah's will. And we pray for that Kingdom to come and for God's will to be done as in heaven also upon the earth. I agree that it teaches exactly the lesson Daniel 4 says it teaches. But we do know that it creates a lot of contradictions to try to make a type/antitype illustration out of Nebuchadnezzar's experience.  And the biggest contradiction is the one we rarely even think of, that if interpreted the way we do, that it provides a framework for the time-table of the parousia, something that only the presumptuous would try to figure out after Jesus said that the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and after Paul said that about the Parousia and about the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us, BECAUSE it is coming as a thief.
Understood. I wasn't necessarily expecting a reply unless someone could think of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence anyway. If anyone thinks the subject is of serious concern and knows of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence, then I'll probably hear about it sooner or later. And besides, you did respond with some Biblical ideas about Daniel 4 that I am not dismissing at all.
I appreciate this and all of the obvious truths that I didn't requote from you because I believe them just as you do. Naturally I disagree somewhat on our responsibility to present truth when we are asked. I don't think it gets us in trouble if we handle our responsibilities seriously. There is no need for any of this to cause disunity. It's just not that important. As you say the important stuff is all there and is understood. I sometimes wonder though, what a Bible Student should have done starting in 1919 and all up well into 1925 when Rutherford was embarrassing himself and the organization. (His own words about embarrassing himself.) What appears to be extreme haughtiness and presumptousness was amazing if you go back and read the words written back then. If you knew that 1925 was based on flimsy evidence would you have said something? Would you have written Rutherford or kept it to yourself? If you were an elder minding the congregation's business and keeping your concerns to yourself, yet you knew there was something wrong, how would you counsel someone else who came up to you for advice? What if that person was a lowly person who also knew exactly what was wrong with the reasoning behind 1925? Would you be humble enough as an elder to learn from that person and realize that these were serious concerns? As a matter of fact there were many Bible Students who went through exactly that back in 1925. And of course, the same goes for any who happened to see the weaknesses and problems with all the other dates predicted from 1881 through 1918, including 100% of the predictions made for the year 1914. Is it our responsibility to make sure and question or is it our responsibility to follow without questioning?
I know your statement above is a way of answering that question, and up to a point I agree. I can even stay quiet in my congregation. But for me it's still a matter of understanding our true responsibility and our conscience. 
BTW, from what I know of you and your experience, (and yes I can read things about you in several places on the Internet), your book would be very interesting to many. I understand the hesitation, don't now if I would do it, even if I had your experiences. Would also be concerned about making money off the good news. But I know that you have some especially good ideas for the Muslim audience, for example, that you have some expertise at. And I do know that there are probably many ways to share good upbuilding thoughts and experiences in good conscience. Perhaps @TrueTomHarley has some ideas here.
 

OK.. done. I have read it again. As always, I deeply appreciate the good research that has gone into the Insight book. When this book first came out under the name "Aid to Bible Understanding" I was just as amazed, especially at the "Chronology" section. It took me nearly four years of scratching out an hour or so each day to completely read the Aid book while still at Bethel. I have never completed the Insight book yet, although I recognize that most of the old entries have remained intact, verbatim, from the older Aid book.
That said, I would love to comment on many items of interest that I found in the "Chronology" article in Insight including everything I agree with and appreciated. First, I will try to limit my comments to those that are relevant to this discussion and the statements you have made above.
So here goes . . .
First, you said: "And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that."
I can say that you have understood very well the basic premise of the the first half of the Chronology article. It is clearly intended to make us us think that the Babylonian Chronology is not firmly established, when it really is, as I said above, one of the MOST firmly established of all ancient timelines. By mixing the Neo-Babylonian in with the Sumerian and Assyrian chronologies, especially by mentioning the much earlier mythical portions of those chronologies, we can easily get confused into thinking the Neo-Babylonian is just like the others. It's always easy to think that if something is wrong with part of something then something must also be wrong with the whole. But we should keep in mind that the Watch Tower publications are so sure of the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology, hat they take ONE of the dates from it (539) and for many years called it an ABSOLUTE date, and used that date as an anchor for the 1914 doctrine that has been repeated over 6,000 times, according to the current updated WT-Library CD. In fact scholars refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as ABSOLUTE dates, therefore the Watch Tower publications now only refer to 539 as a "pivotal" or "assured" date, rather than an absolute date..
*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical.
A true statement "in the main" especially about their "earlier periods" but we are interested ONLY in the Neo-Babylonian period.
*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period.
Notice that all these nations have still been mixed together, rather than marvel at the amazing completeness of the Neo-Babylonian period, based on literally THOUSANDS of interrelated, interlocking, dated tablets and monuments. It's true that it has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information. This is as we should expect, and it turns out that all these THOUSANDS of bits of information support the "accepted chronology." And we should note that the Watch Tower publications do refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as the "accepted chronology" -- not because one man named Carl Olof Jonsson accepts it, but because ALL the known Neo-Babylonian scholars accept the overwhelming evidence.  Obviously, these experts don't accept it just because it supports the Bible's timeline, yet it is easy to show that it really does.  And these same scholars are the ones that the Insight book relies upon for the 539 date. These THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence actually support the Bible's timeline much better than the Watch Tower's timeline.
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.
This doesn't mean that the Watch Tower accepts the "accepted chronology," of course, but the reasons that the Watch Tower gives are not real reasons. It is very easy to show that they are just pretend reasons. The Insight book inadvertently admits that these are just pretend reasons, if you look at it closely enough.
*** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology ***
While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms.
Notice the contradictory reasoning here. TENS OF THOUSANDS of clay tablets bearing inscriptions are supposedly minimized for being religious texts or mundane business documents. Notice what is left out, however: they are EACH ONE DATED to the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Also, by throwing some Egyptian papyrus scrolls into the mix, it's possible to imply that many of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents might be religious documents -- and this very likely makes us think they are reduced in value in determining a chronology. We are also supposed to get the idea that the historical writings are reduced in value because they glorify their emperors and military campaigns. We are supposed to think if "myth" and "exaggeration" here. These are the bad apples that are supposed to spoil the whole bushel.
*** it-1 p. 449 Chronology ***
Engraved in stone or inscribed in clay, some ancient pagan documents may seem very impressive, but this does not ensure their correctness and their freedom from falsehood. Not the material written on, but the writer, his purpose, his respect for truth, his devotion to righteous principles—these are the important factors that give sound basis for confidence, in chronological as well as other matters. The great age of the secular documents is certainly outweighed by the vastly inferior quality of their contents . . .
Yes, these contemporary documents will never be the Bible. But let's at least admit to what they are. In fact, these TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents about mundane matters do not contain any of "myth" or "religion" or "exaggeration" and they are all dated. Not only that, but these dates are interconnected not just through the year of each king, but they include a second name, the name of the current "company president" always including who his father was, and sometimes even who his son was who would become the next president when his father died or retired. In addition to a complete timeline of the kings, you can also double-check it with a complete timeline of the firm's presidents and their sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc. Thousands of the tablets come from the largest "financial firm" of that time, which handled real estate, banking, loans, and commerce contracts.
It's as if you had a great-grandmother you never met who claimed to live to be 120 years old, and then you went into an attic and found that she had left 10,000 checkbook receipts, loan receipts, deeds, etc., which are not only dated with the day and month, but she also added the year of each U.S. President to each check, so that they would say for example: Lincoln's 3rd year, Johnson's 1st year, Grant's 2nd year. But they also had the name of the bank president, and the bank president's son. So now you could see how long each U.S president served and even synchronize it with how long each bank president served. But the main thing is that she had several checks for each and every year of each president. And you would have no trouble putting them in order because she also had a memo on each check where you could double-check the father and son currently running the bank in every year, too. This way if there were two presidents named Johnson (Andrew and Lyndon) in her check receipts, you could know which was which.
But there is one more thing about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents -- not mentioned. There are enough of them to show exactly what month of the year a given king died, because whenever a king was living the month and day and year of that king's reign was inscribed, but when he died the new king was shown sometimes in tablets of the same month just days after the new king was inaugurated, and the new king would be inscribed as being in his "0" year, or "accession" year.
There is one more point that is just as important. Some of these tablets match up with customer's names on preceding tablets, or some tablets refer to transactions that cut across the time period of two kings. This could be a loan made in the time of one king, but paid off three years later in the time of another king. Or it could be a payment for an item during the last months of one king, and another for the delivery of those items in the early months of another king.
In every case, we not only have tablets for every year of the timeline, but there is no way to claim the kings are in the wrong order, or that one might refer ambiguously to a different king of the same name. (This actually comes close to happening when some usurpers named Nebuchadnezzar show up, but their attempts lasted only a few months at a time, and happened long after the dates we are concerned about between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.)
Without mentioning any of these facts, the Insight book goes on with a quote from Ceran "The Secret of the Hittites." If you have the book you will know the true context of the quote.
*** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology ***
Well illustrating why secular histories do not qualify as the standard of accuracy by which to judge Bible chronology is this statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern science of historical dating:  ". . .For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” —The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134.
There are so many things wrong with this type of quotation when you realize that it is almost all geared toward accepting 539 (capture of Babylon) and not accepting 587 (destruction of Jerusalem). Yet both dates are from the same experts. Also there is no conflict between the Neo-Babylonian dating and the Bible, the only conflict is the Watchtower's interpretation -- which was only found necessary as a way to reach the 1914 date. But this book is talking about the Hittites. In fact, in just the next couple of paragraphs he uses an example of King Menes in Egypt from 2900 BCE! The purpose appears to be in order to mix up the problems of the early Egyptian timeline with the Neo-Babylonian. But it also leaves out the very next paragraph after King Menes. In fact, back in a Watchtower article that tried to bolster more faith in the predictions made about the 1975 time period, it actually used this same book to say that 539 was "assured."
*** w68 5/1 pp. 270-271 pars. 2-3 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
" . . . the book The Secret of the Hittites, by C. W. Ceram, in the chapter entitled “The Science of Historical Dating,” states:  . . . “But as we go even deeper into the subject, our respect for the achievements of historical detective work returns. We learn that the scholars have been careful to distinguish between ‘assured’ and ‘assumed’ dates. And we discover that the chronological framework of ancient history rests upon at least a few firm points. Certain key dates, around which other dates are mustered, can be determined almost without error. They are ‘assured.’”
3 Hence, outside the Bible’s timetable, most dates set by historians are unreliable. Only a few “assured,” or absolute, dates, such as 539 B.C.E., . . .
Ceram didn't mention 539 here, the Watchtower added that. As far as the Egyptian chronology goes, note that the Watch Tower is only pushing for about a 100 year difference through much of it, and only a 20 year difference by the time of Josiah.
*** it-1 p. 450 Chronology ***
The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time. The following information shows why we prefer to hold to the chronology based on the Biblical reckoning.
That 20-year difference was necessary in order to make Jerusalem's fall change from 587 (accepted date) to 607 (the date required for 1914 to work). It's not that there is any evidence for it. There is none. But what is extremely ironic is that the entire discussion of why the Egyptian dates are not accepted is almost a precise description of the same exact reasoning about why 587 is not accepted. But here's the real irony: every one of these factors that supposedly weakens the unaccepted dates are exactly the factors that were used in order to get the 539 date. In other words the Watch Tower Society doesn't really think these are weakening factors at all; we accept them all perfectly for 539, and even call 539 an ASSURED date because of the same factors. This is how we know that the reasons given are only "pretend" reasons.
Under Assyrian Chronology no attempt is made to synchronize:
*** it-1 p. 452 Chronology ***
The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records.
For now, we can leave it at that because nothing there is critical to the points of discussion under Babylonian chronology. Twice as much space is devoted to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronologies and the issues surrounding their accuracy. This is the most interesting to this discussion, so I will continue some comments for discussion in the next post.

I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you without all the unnecessary rhetoric. I understand your situation somewhat, if you actually believe I am espousing the equivalent of apostate ideas, and you wish to counter them, but also wish to keep reminding an "audience" somewhere that you know "from whence such ideas come from," and need to clarify your distance while still engaging in dialogue. 
And yes, I could tell that there is a bit of censorship going on here, (e.g. the "POSTER") although I figured it was self-censorship due to previous warnings about not directly calling a specific poster an "apostate" or reminding them of their "Satanic" roots, or effectively threatening people who merely "upvote" the posts of people you strongly disagree with. (I copied a few of those long topics to my hard drive, and several of them have your original posts in them, that have since been deleted from the current site. Those deletions all reflected problems like the ones I just mentioned.) Personally, I really don't care about being mislabeled as much as the site owners apparently do. I think that as long as we can share information, it's the Internet after all, and we can expect whatever gets thrown at us.  But it does get to be a time waster for anyone who wants to wade through the debris. And I always assumed that's part of the reason why you and others have done this: it puts a protective wall of debris (anti-posts), so that people don't really get into the real [perceived] pile of garbage, the topic itself. That's actually the reason I've so often just ignored what you've said in the past.
I think a lot of people confuse the meaning of ad hominem a little bit, too. If you think someone is terrible and you say why you think that they are terrible based on why their argument is bad that is NOT ad hominem. It's when you say why you think they are terrible INSTEAD of saying why their argument is bad; that is an ad hominem. It's only when calling names is merely a diversion so that you don't have to defend against the argument itself. That's why Jesus was not using ad hominem when he spoke against the Pharisees, scribes, etc. He said they are 'wicked' BECAUSE of specific things they did or practiced.
I also agree that you (in all guises and names) have been generally peaceful, reasonable, and helpful in the majority of your posts, even where I disagree with the point. I also agree that when it comes to being purposely "obnoxious" (if that's the word) there have been others here who have taken the prize in that area. Of course, the lesson appears to be that if someone is trying to be both provocative and funny at the same time, then almost anything goes. But I can see why that looks hypocritical.
Sometimes, the danger of not responding to you allows ideas like this to fester, and then be used again as if they were true all along. My approach might appear more reasonable to you because I am beginning to understand your argument a bit better, but there is nothing inconsistent with previous arguments, which is why you cannot find any arguments that are inconsistent. I think you might be referring to the fact that I am not quibbling over a year or two difference, but if you go back to any of the old discussions you will find that this has always been the case. (I was the one, who agreed that the 3 weeks for Neb to get back from Hatti-land to Babylon always seemed just a bit too fast, even if Josephus is right about the short-cut.) Although I prefer 587, I can see a good reason for 586. Although the 70 years should end in 539, I can see a reason to go for 538. (The Jews could have come back in 537, but that wouldn't change when the 70 years ended a year or two prior to that.) You should be able to find all of these arguments in past discussions because they are all still around. These are not new arguments for a new audience. You might have conflated what I said with others like Ann, or ScholarJW, or others. You have done that before.
I have said that I could care less what Carl Olof Jonnson wrote. All he did is repeat the evidence that is agreed upon by nearly 100% of the experts and scholars on the subject. It has nothing to do with him. My own independent study, which I did because of a dialogue I was having with Rolf Furuli, convinced me that HUNDREDS of scholars were right and Rolf Furuli had used a lot of logical fallacies and outright intellectual and scholastic dishonesty in a book that he sent me personally (for free, at that!). So far, neither you nor ScholarJW or anyone else have been able to show otherwise. It matters not that COJ might have come to the same conclusion. I have never spoken with COJ, I have spoken with Rolf Furuli. I have never read all of COJ's book. I have read every word of the last two books by Furuli. I have not "stated" that COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower, which is why you will not find such a statement.
Your claim that I stated that "COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower" reminds me of J.F.Rutherford. Rutherford was not impugning the credibility of the Watchtower itself just because he found more evidence for a new teaching. Was Rutherford saying that his doctrine of 1925 has more credibility than Watch Tower's doctrine of 1914 just because he said: [2nd quotation corrected in late edit. Thanks Allen Smith.]
 "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ."  — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211.
"The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262.
". . . the dates impart a much greater strength than can be found in other chronologies. Some of them are of so remarkable a character as clearly to indicate that this chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct. INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED. When a  date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. . . . when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance . . . and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty. PROOF OF DIVINE ORIGIN. . . . this is proof of divine origin and that the system is not a human invention . . . — "The Strong Cable of Chronology" The Watchtower, July 15, 1922, p.217, 218.
QUESTION AND ANSWER: Have we more reason, or as much, to believe the Kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had  to believe that there would be a flood? [Answer] Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. . . we expect such a climax in the affairs of the world . . . He is already present. . . . He is dashing to pieces the nations. . . .As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had . . . upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." — The Watchtower,  April 1, 1923, p.106
"When you take up a more advanced study of the Bible, you will find that the year 1925 A. D. is particularly marked in prophecy." The Way to Paradise, p.220
No, he was not disparaging the Watchtower for having taught 1914. He was not putting one person as more credible than the Watchtower, because he obviously still accepted the Watchtower, and even though all the expectations for 1914 had failed, he still thought that there was evidence that something about 1914 was still true. Was Rutherford really saying that 1925 was more credible than 1914, or just saying that there was more evidence for 1925 than for 1914?
Similarly, I'm saying that there is more evidence against the 1914 doctrine than there is for it. Just like Rutherford, I think that multiple lines of evidence begin to make a proposition less an indication of chance, and more an indication of certainty. I am not using this to disparage the Watchtower in general which is right on many more things than it has been wrong about. Also, note that I am not even saying that the nearly 100% of experts (perhaps there are thousands) in the field of chronology need to be right. After all, Rutherford was not right about 1925 nor even about most of the other dates he referred to as "unqualifiedly correct." Nothing about my faith changes if secular experts show how  the chronology corroborates the Bible (which it does) or if it supposedly "proved" the Bible incorrect (which it doesn't). Even if all the potential thousands of experts could prove it was 607 when Jerusalem was destroyed, it still would have no effect on my faith, for Biblical reasons. I have faith that Jesus was correct when he said that no one would be able to put a date on the parousia.
I have never said it was a "PET" project. If I have a "PET" project, it has been to show that the Kingdom is one of the primary themes of the Bible, and that even the Hebrew Scriptures pointed to a Messiah who turned out to be identifiable in his day as Jesus Christ, and how this truth was revealed in such a way, even if it was a "sacred secret" that it was unavoidable and undeniable for the persons of his generation. But that is not a project that I have discussed much about yet on this forum. What I am doing here is sharing things I learned from other Witnesses years ago, didn't particularly want to believe, but which became undeniable to me after thorough study and prayerful consideration. It's not necessary that anyone follow it or believe it, but my conscience tells me that I should at least share in the things learned. New information is being found on this subject all the time, and I think some have had difficulty fitting this new cloth or new wine onto the old framework of the 1914 doctrine. I think the information shared might help these brothers and sisters. Others will have no use for it, which is OK, too:
(Matthew 9:16, 17) . . .Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment, for the new piece pulls away from the garment and the tear becomes worse. 17 Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins. If they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
(Matthew 13:52) . . .every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”
A research on this forum from other threads will definitely and consistently show this to be the case.

I believe I do have an open mind and I am open to new ways of looking at things but when one argues about history and dates one really has to have the expertise in the field to distinguish fact from fiction...  And unfortunately most experts will accept dodgy historians of ancient days while overriding what the bible has to say.   This is when I evaluate what the bible has to say first and look at what material the organization has looked at and evaluated before me.  In the past I used to get the books ( quoted in the Insight book) from the library  (when possible)  and look at it for myself.    
I think one should really evaluate the information which the governing body has put together as part of your decision making process and not be an expert on your own.  In collaboration with others one will reach a better conclusion.  I do not reject new thinking but I think that when someone has done the trouble to go through all the available information on the subject to assist us one should NOT be suspicious that they are pushing an agenda as though they are our enemy and wish to harm us. They truly believe they have a mission to uphold Jehovah's word - despite the fact that they are fallible and sometimes grumpy old men. 
This is why I like the idea of writing committees because this ensures that most agree with what must be written before it is published.  Yes there are always domineering individuals but I do think that this is eventually sorted out - and when it comes to history or evaluating ideas - one has to evaluate everything that is available.
One of my first test of any new information is : how does it fit in with what the rest of the Bible says about this subject.... if there are several other places which confirms a particular viewpoint - this is what I will go with.  
I believe that there will in future be wicked individual slaves - like in the past - who will sow seeds of apostasy and as part of Satans final onslaught to attack the slave --- by slanderous material (already happening) and spreading false information (already here) and sowing doubt about basic teachings.  I am vigilant to this - not to be infected by persons who are not really convinced in their heart of the time-line in the purpose of Jehovah.
I have studied this time-line before but now I have renewed vigor to look at it again!   I do look at Darwinian websites so I can think like one of them when I speak to them.  I like to see issues I have not thought of before.  I also like Physics and the new developments... to see where my faith may be challenged ; and I have always love history - ancient history and modern. 
I am NOT a scholar but an autodidact..... and the more I know the more I realize how little I know.... I had a big ego when I was younger and had a great future with a great talent but I have let all that  go and work daily to be the best I can be to the glory of Jehovah.    
Now and then I get on this site and let go - to the chagrin of my fellow witnesses....  Apologies if I hurt someone's feelings because it is arrogant to think that one can be the protector of what Jehovah has said.  He has the power and insight to do it all by himself.  But I do think that I should love my fellows enough, to tell them with honesty when I see that they do not value what has already been prepared for us and value their own ideas more - to the detriment of themselves.  
 

My only Bethel contact, and one I've let grow cold, as I've not kept in touch, once told me that the closer one gets to the 'inside,' the more challenge it can be perceiving God's direction. Friends will marvel at how God has supplied just the right understanding at just the right time, and he will say "yeah, it's only because so-and-so is too stubborn to...."
THIS is how God 'works in mysterious ways,' to borrow a phrase the churches use when their doctrines have painted them into corners they cannot get out of. Jehovah does use an organization - it is evident if only by its accomplishments and unity - he uses imperfect men who have differences and opinions, and somehow hammers out leadership from them. To suggest otherwise is to suggest our critics are right - that JWs are brain-controlled zombies. No, they are regular people, with differences even at 'the top' and yet somehow God makes it all work.
If there is one thing I would gingerly suggest we do wrong, it is the frequently repeated admonition to stay away from any 'apostate reasoning' because it is like poison. I see why they do it - because the scriptures state they should - and yet it leads to almost a superstition among some of us that mere ideas are poisonous. In fact, the ideas are not poisonous; what is poisonous is many of the people who are pushing them.
So when you get off-the-grid thinking from someone who is decidedly not poisonous, it is not necessarily a bad thing. Whether it's great to put such stuff out there publicly is for others to say, but since countless persons have served in capacities in which they gain a glimpse into the inner workings, and there is an internet upon which they can write, it is unavoidable that some will. Frankly, the best way to handle such writing if someone deems it objectionable is to ignore it and let it drown in the boundless sea of online verbiage. You (and I) by our frequent comments are ensuring that does not happen, somewhat to the chagrin of JWI himself, I suspect, who says he deliberately chose a obscure forum to unload without being in-your-face about it. He assists in his own mission by posting comments so long that 98.9% will pass over them. I do. That is, I skim - not because I am uninterested, but because I have too much on my plate. No one can do everything and I leave such matters to those who have more affinity for it than I. They will refine and shift and ultimately something will come down through theocratic channels and I will say: "yep, it must work, because of the '900 languages.'"
Is it possible to become full-of-oneself or proud from too much expounding? Of course. "Knowledge puffs up," Paul says. But that is a caution, not a direction to avoid thought on that account. Theocratic publications are also a product of thinking. There are other factors that serve to keep one humble, such as full participation in the ministry, the drubbing one takes from life experiences, and the recognition that we ought not get too big for our britches ever because we can all go Alzheimer's, cancer, or run over by a truck, at a moment's notice.
I like this. I have added the italics. It is the reason that John differs from Matthew, Mark and Luke - the former was written decades later and the needs of the Christian community had changed. So it is with theocratic writings.
 
Sometimes you can spirit away the old hen and see if anyone will pony up to get her back. I have found she is not in such demand as she apparently thinks she is. Incidentally, humor, IMO, flavored with just the right mix of ridicule, is a great way to confront the poisonous persons I speak of, (though one must be careful with humor, especially ridicule, because it does not translate well) if you are unlucky enough to run across them. Expressing outrage and accusations - please forgive me for this because I know where you do it, it is because you are jealous for pure worship, as we should be - only makes them gleeful at getting such a rise out of us and encourages them to do more.
Again, to quote you: "My only concern here is to allow visitors to this website NOT read here what they would normally be accustomed to reading in apostate sites."
Hopefully, they don't. I don't. (Having said that, the best way to get someone to do something is to tell them they shouldn't) The one time I deliberately did as an experiment, I was met with such nastiness that I backed out after a few days. They weren't nasty at first. They were effusive in their greetings until they perceived that I was not about to jump ship.

Yes, I believe the Bible to be correct, too, of course, and I agree that in the Insight book we have a wealth of excellent research. I am re-reading the Chronology article there and am looking at ALL the different reasons and calculations they use for getting to 539 BCE. I will go ahead and read the entire Chronology section again before I hit "Submit Reply." I will give it a completely open mind, and will only make notes that are positive and supportive of the article along the way.
...
...
...
Not done yet! I have read it twice before, and very carefully at that! But I'm giving it another go and will not be done before tomorrow, perhaps noon. I did see your last post as a reminder.
 

@Eoin Joyce quoted one of the first real hints of the overlapping generation doctrine from the Feb 15, 2008 WT (above).
Above, I also quoted a WT QFR that mentioned overlapping generations from the Sept. 1, 1952 WT, and it showed why overlapping generations do not effect the length of the generation Jesus spoke about.
After the 2008 article, there was also a more recent mention of the some of the same points repeated in the April 15, 2010 WT, and this 2010 article was the first to explicitly create a generation that is defined by the overlap of two specific groups: One group saw the start of an event, and another group could not have seen the start of that event, but would see the start of a different event, not more than two lifespans from the first event:
*** w10 4/15 pp. 10-11 pars. 13-14 Holy Spirit’s Role in the Outworking of Jehovah’s Purpose ***
13 Third, holy spirit is at work in bringing Bible truths to light. (Prov. 4:18) This magazine has long been used by “the faithful and discreet slave” as the primary channel for dispensing increased light. (Matt. 24:45) For example, consider our understanding of those who make up “this generation” mentioned by Jesus. (Read Matthew 24:32-34.) To what generation did Jesus refer? The article “Christ’s Presence—What Does It Mean to You?” explained that Jesus was referring, not to the wicked, but to his disciples, who were soon to be anointed with holy spirit. Jesus’ anointed followers, both in the first century and in our day, would be the ones who would not only see the sign but also discern its meaning—that Jesus “is near at the doors.”
14 What does this explanation mean to us? Although we cannot measure the exact length of “this generation,” we do well to keep in mind several things about the word “generation”: It usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period; it is not excessively long; and it has an end. (Ex. 1:6) How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about “this generation”? He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end. The fulfillment of the various features of the sign clearly indicates that the tribulation must be near. By maintaining your sense of urgency and keeping on the watch, you show that you are keeping up with advancing light and following the leadings of holy spirit.—Mark 13:37.
I included the paragraph that drops plenty of hints that this new idea is evidence of holy spirit at work, and that it represents the light of Bible truth, and that the source is the "faithful and discreet slave." This introduction stands together with the explanation in paragraph 14 that we don't know the length, that it "usually" refers to a given description, and that Jesus "evidently" refers to a version of what it "usually" refers to. The only points that are given with "sureness" are these:
The generation had a beginning It will have an end The fulfillment of various features of the sign indicates that the tribulation must be near Note that it isn't by believing in a potential 'two-lifespan' generation that we are keeping up with advancing light and the leadings of holy spirit, but only explcitly by maintaining a sense of urgency, and keeping on the watch. As Christians we would do this with or without the two-lifespan generation, based on other scriptures, for example:
(2 Timothy 4:1, 2) . . .: 2 Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times. . .
(Ephesians 5:15, 16) 15 So keep strict watch that how you walk is not as unwise but as wise persons, 16 making the best use of your time, because the days are wicked.
(2 Peter 3:11, 12) . . .Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah. . .
 

On 7/31/2017 at 11:07 AM, TrueTomHarley said:
There comes a time when one must suck it up and move on - either stay or leave, but move on.
@b4ucuhear: Is that what I should have told my sister? My younger sister was sexually molested by an elder. She stayed despite that without making waves, until she started to see other things she found deeply disturbing and then she did "move on" as you say. Actually, she shouldn't have "moved on" because later on, most of the elders (the bad ones) were either removed or disfellowshipped - half of them were apostate (but that's not all they were up to). Of course nobody wanted to believe anything (even with concrete evidence) since they were regulars on the circuit assembly platform and on even on the district convention. It took about 10 years to sort itself out (should have been much quicker considering the evidence), but it did, (although it took other elders to step in and do what actually had to be done.) Still, 1 Timothy 5:24 will prove to be true if you wait, in one way or another. 
…….
TTH:  "This ‘superfine apostle’ in the 2 Corinthians 11:5 mold was a big honcho in the HVAC world and would freeze everyone out of the Kingdom Hall because he liked it cool - even locking the thermostat so nobody not under his control could touch it. One elderly sister declared she would no longer attend meetings – where was the love?
"It developed that this man planned to poison his wife so as to move in with another woman, and all the while maintain his position in the congregation. Joe Merlin sniffed him out in a heartbeat. ‘How can you guys be so naïve?’ he cried before one Body of Elders who could not believe what was right before them. But when the dust at last settled, one of them approached him: ‘You’re right, Joe - we are naïve.’ Sometimes Jehovah’s people are naïve. They are the ‘sons of the light’ whom the ‘sons of this system of things’ do end runs around."
From the chapter 'Dirty Rotten Lowlifes' in 'No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash.'
……
@b4ucuhear I respect you for that. Knowing bad things can happen yet having the strength of faith and character to stay - as you seem - spiritually strong in the truth. Might I ask you to share with us what enables you to maintain your faith and dedication despite faith testing situations (whether you were personally in that congregation or not?)
……..
Why Remain a Witness when Bad Things Happen?
Here are things that have helped me. I’ll add some others, maybe.
First, the psalm that says if you love God’s law, there is no stumbling block. (Ps 119:165) Humans will let you down from time to time. God never does.
Second, Peter’s statement to Jesus when the latter said something outrageous. “Lord, where else shall we go?” (John 6:68) Exactly. Who else enjoys the basic spiritual truths and does the scripturally appointed work of Jehovah’s Witnesses? (Why would Jesus say what he did, knowing it could so easily be misconstrued? Can it be that he does so to separate the keepers from the bad fish?)
Third, recognition that the key is, not to try to sanitize the present, but to unsanitize the past. Meaning the congregation, Paul says that in any house there are vessels for uses both honorable and dishonorable, and one must keep away from the latter. (2 Timothy 2:20) Plenty of riff-raff back then, he is saying. The Hebrew scriptures even point to times and situations when God's people acted worse than the nations, so if they are instances today here or there, it should hardly be a shocker, even if it goes on for a few years. In OT times, it went on for decades.
Fourth, I like it that God mocks the wisdom of this world - wisdom which has given us the disaster we all must live in. From where is that wisdom dispensed but in the world’s system of higher education? Only Jehovah’s Witnesses eschew it, and despite that (or because of it) they have constructed a seamless system the envy of human governments that can’t reliably provide the most basic of services. We are the one religion of size that have not strayed from its ‘working class’ roots so as to suck up to the ‘better’ people. Acts 4:13 says the elites were astonished how the leaders of Christianity were ordinary and unlearned by their standards. That remains so today. Current GB members start out, not from a lofty perch above others, like in any other organization today, but from humble full-time service below that of most persons they later lead.
Fifth, a recognition that the crowd is always wrong. While some fear the prevalence of apostates will harm the true faith, I think, to the discerning one, it strengthens it. Hostility over Jehovah’s Witnesses is way out of proportion to any sins they have committed, and are often entirely bogus. Ann mentioned Muslims. They have tendency to produce murderous extremists and they have a sharia law that, taken seriously, does far more than shun transgressors, and savages Western notions of woman’s rights. Write an article about Muslims and you will receive many hostile comments. Write one about Jehovah's Witnesses and you will drown in hostile comments, though their numbers are far fewer and their transgressions far less serious. Don’t follow the crowd for evil ends, Exodus 23:2 says, or, as everyone’s mother said: if everyone was jumping off a cliff, would you jump too? If the crowd says the religion stinks, it must be good.
That’s for starters. 

That's just it. I personally do not think that 1914 really is that important with regard to being spiritually ready or not. Not only that, but who of us uses 1914 as part of the preaching message to be honest? Who of us has recently "explained" it to someone at the door, or even to a study? In view of that, I do not think that putting forward "alternate" views regarding 1914 on this forum necessarily garbles our message, because our message is not about 1914, but about being ready because we do not know when the end will come. Refinements to our scriptural understanding are being made usually after we discern that our past application has become obsolete due to the passage of time. But notice our core beliefs have never had to be adjusted since about 1935. We still believe the same about the soul, what happens when we die, who go to heaven, what is hell, the identity of God, the identity of Jesus, God's kingdom, the good news, moral standards etc.etc. So all the other stuff is interesting, but irrelevant to our salvation in the grand scheme of things. I doubt Jehovah is going to judge someone as not worthy of life just because they have reservations about 1914 or some other chronological aspect.

You are apparently asking for a secular date: a date that requires the input of scholars who have studied the archaeology, astronomy, language and therefore, the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period of history. The only way that we could attach a secular date to this event is if we accept the expert scholars' opinions about the chronology. Those experts tell us that it's part of a timeline that includes and is interwoven with all the lengths of the reigns of the kings of the period. The lengths of these reigns include kings well before Nebuchadnezzar back into the late Assyrian period through the kings well after Cyrus and on into the period of Greek kings. The lengths of all these kings tend to double-check each other and the synchronization with prior and later timelines is useful as a way to make sure the entire period is understood correctly. Otherwise, who is to say there were not several kings named Nebuchadnezzar, and several named Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes, etc. All the data must be placed into a schema and then that schema can be double-checked through several different independent lines of evidence to see if it is being understood correctly.
So, to make a long story short, the Watchtower has admitted that it is estimating the year for the Judeans to return to Jerusalem as 537 BCE. This is based on the idea that we can confidently say that Cyrus first partial year over Babylon was 539 and therefore his first full regnal year was 538, which was therefore, the most likely time when the Jews returned. Biblically, it appears that the call went out in the first regnal year of the king called Cyrus. Putting the secular date of 539 or 538 on this year is only possible because the neo-Babylonian chronology schema allows us to know when Nabopolassar ruled, when Nebuchadnezzar II ruled, when Nabonidus ruled, when Cyrus ruled, and which astronomical sightings and other events help us to confirm each of these king's reigns and how they fit between and among the reigns of the other kings in the period. In other words, we can know that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years when he destroyed the temple. But if we are to put a secular date on them it's only because we can put a date on any other king's reign during this period.
If we say that Cyrus' first full year was 538, it's because we can say that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year was 587 and 586. All the dates are part of a whole. If we say that the Temple must have been destroyed in 607, for example, that's the same as saying that Cyrus' first full year started in 558. That would mean that the Watchtower would have to say that the Jews must have returned to Jerusalem in 558 or 557, instead of 537.
Fortunately, we now have several independent lines of evidence that all show us that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 586, and therefore we can be sure that Cyrus 1st regnal year was 538. If we trust the astronomical diaries, we now have literally dozens of additional pieces of evidence to pinpoint secular dates at many points in the entire chronology. We also have the dated contract documents, thousands of them, that all confirm that these secular-astronomical dates are correct. These thousands of contracts show us that there are 48 years accounted for from Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to Cyrus 1st. This is a perfect match to the other independent lines of evidence. 
Of course, all this is irrelevant, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thessalonians, 2 Peter and Revelation. There is no relationship between the time that the Jews returned to Jerusalem and the beginning of the Parousia.

You are apparently asking for a secular date: a date that requires the input of scholars who have studied the archaeology, astronomy, language and therefore, the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period of history. The only way that we could attach a secular date to this event is if we accept the expert scholars' opinions about the chronology. Those experts tell us that it's part of a timeline that includes and is interwoven with all the lengths of the reigns of the kings of the period. The lengths of these reigns include kings well before Nebuchadnezzar back into the late Assyrian period through the kings well after Cyrus and on into the period of Greek kings. The lengths of all these kings tend to double-check each other and the synchronization with prior and later timelines is useful as a way to make sure the entire period is understood correctly. Otherwise, who is to say there were not several kings named Nebuchadnezzar, and several named Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes, etc. All the data must be placed into a schema and then that schema can be double-checked through several different independent lines of evidence to see if it is being understood correctly.
So, to make a long story short, the Watchtower has admitted that it is estimating the year for the Judeans to return to Jerusalem as 537 BCE. This is based on the idea that we can confidently say that Cyrus first partial year over Babylon was 539 and therefore his first full regnal year was 538, which was therefore, the most likely time when the Jews returned. Biblically, it appears that the call went out in the first regnal year of the king called Cyrus. Putting the secular date of 539 or 538 on this year is only possible because the neo-Babylonian chronology schema allows us to know when Nabopolassar ruled, when Nebuchadnezzar II ruled, when Nabonidus ruled, when Cyrus ruled, and which astronomical sightings and other events help us to confirm each of these king's reigns and how they fit between and among the reigns of the other kings in the period. In other words, we can know that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years when he destroyed the temple. But if we are to put a secular date on them it's only because we can put a date on any other king's reign during this period.
If we say that Cyrus' first full year was 538, it's because we can say that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year was 587 and 586. All the dates are part of a whole. If we say that the Temple must have been destroyed in 607, for example, that's the same as saying that Cyrus' first full year started in 558. That would mean that the Watchtower would have to say that the Jews must have returned to Jerusalem in 558 or 557, instead of 537.
Fortunately, we now have several independent lines of evidence that all show us that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 586, and therefore we can be sure that Cyrus 1st regnal year was 538. If we trust the astronomical diaries, we now have literally dozens of additional pieces of evidence to pinpoint secular dates at many points in the entire chronology. We also have the dated contract documents, thousands of them, that all confirm that these secular-astronomical dates are correct. These thousands of contracts show us that there are 48 years accounted for from Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to Cyrus 1st. This is a perfect match to the other independent lines of evidence. 
Of course, all this is irrelevant, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thessalonians, 2 Peter and Revelation. There is no relationship between the time that the Jews returned to Jerusalem and the beginning of the Parousia.

You read my mind!
Sadly, many do think that 1914 is a backbone doctrine. And to a great extent this is so when we refer to how we understand the prophecies of the last days.
How sad that Russell when he looked at adjusting the failures regarding dates found interesting Benjamin Wilson (and his use of parousia in the Diaglott) and did not get to familiarize himself with the recent findings (at that time) of Deissmann, regarding the specialized use of parousia (The visit of the king), different from the common (presence).
 
How much I would like to comment on this! But now I'm right in the middle of a move to another city!!

Can we see the first 30% of her for free? It'd be like 'proof of life.'

What does not cease to amaze me, and at the same time causes me deep sadness, is the lack of humility in expressing our positions regarding prophecies.
I would like a tone more as if we were "Students of the Bible" But we usually speak as "touched" by God. Like their Channel, in the sense that when the GB meets on Wednesdays the Shekhina light shines on them. I remember at a recent annual meeting the brother explaining a new prophetic understanding. In closing he said something like "are not we happy to see how Jehovah has shown us these things?" I thought, "And if in a while you have to teach just the opposite, is Jehovah wrong now?"
I mean, (I've said it many times in several posts) Why do not we do like the recent Watchtower we studied, regarding what Jesus meant when he asked Peter "Do you love me more than these?"
W17, May, p. 22 “After serving them breakfast, Jesus turned to Simon Peter and said: “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” To what was Jesus referring? Peter was quite attached to fishing. So it seems that Jesus was asking him where his true affection lay” The explanation is presented as a probability. That is humility. And with the HUGE amount of evidence pointing to the weakness of 607, seven times, 1914, parousia = presence, invisible parousia, etc, etc., how good would it be that we were humbler.
Above, I have said that this astonishes me. I ask myself, "Do not the responsible brothers see the amount of evidence in another direction? It cannot be, because I am rather limited, and I see it. Don’t they realize that we may incur in God's displeasure if we remain so stubborn? Are not we loving our traditions too much?
By the way, thank you very much @JW Insider for providing us with such complete and scholarly information.

Can we see the first 30% of her for free? It'd be like 'proof of life.'